The media makes the scandals, not the science

Another worth reading interview with Ronald Meester has been published, now at Nieuwrechts.nl. Out mortality was the central theme. The comparison he makes in the interview with the Weekly Boeing that falls out of the sky was appealing. It may be clear that Master informs himself widely and thus picks up various signals. As a professor of probability account at the University of Amsterdam, he is used to explaining and weighing those signaled facts with data analyzes. It is precisely for someone for whom that is a matter of course, it is difficult to digest if there are events of which the possibly explanatory data will be darkened.

Darnage month ...?

Those data that it is about are health data of the population. They not only describe us, it is also data that has been collected in the name of the population and for which the population has paid to be able to figure out how we as a population are doing with our health. Typically a task to delegate a government. With this democratically acquired mandate, the government therefore has permission to budget and implement. Science must be an important supporting pillar. Science is fed with Data & Discussion by sensible and skilled people, who must each have the same information for this. Transparency is therefore the basis of science and that is immediately a guarantee for publicity. Thorough independent evaluation afterwards must optimize policy.

But now something crazy is happening. The government suddenly seizes the data of the population. Exactly at a time when we worked hard and piles of data have been collected with which the policy could be optimized. Science is suddenly no longer transparent - at least state science, because we appear to have to construct that divorce. State science appears to be a closed civil servant bastion with the minister at the head. Evaluation is thwarted, not only by withholding data but also by torpedoing a committee of inquiry and the manipulation of MSM and social media that should actually emphasize or even demand the need for those evaluations.

The State now claims the exclusive right to all information collected for us and reserves the decision rights about whether or not to release it, as if they were an autonomous entity. As if you suddenly notice that the national borders have been barricaded: "No sorry, you stay on your own terrain, we think that is better for you." Pardon?

This alone would be a national scandal must be. Why is that not going to be? Because the government manages to ensure us through the media that they can better protect us in this way. Most of the frightened population is very sensitive to that. Most people want virtue, but they have to feel well protected for that. Otherwise they might have to stand up for themselves, protect themselves or defend themselves and then they are not good because then they don't do it for someone else. So it is not a scandal and it will not be a scandal, that "protection" from above.

What is a "scandal"?

The word "scandal (/outrageous)" appears five times in the interview, in the sense of "If research shows that vaccinations can be harmful, that would be a huge scandal.Here is the role of science aboutdear and that of the media heavy underDarling. Scientifically minded thinkers assume that with a well -founded story we can rectify everything in one fell swoop. But there are already those well -founded stories - the available data are incomplete, but what they suggest all points in the same direction. The fact that vaccinations are many times more harmful and less effective than we were told has been above water for some time. That further investigation with the highest urgency should also have been started.

This way the stack of red flags is getting higher and of course the stack of follow -up questions is growing. It is the science itself that always questions "to be sure." That will always stay that way, that's what science is for. But for answers you need data and those redeeming data are not provided, just as you don't let a toddler play with matches. Better not.

The excuse is already being put forward by this and that: "They did it to protect us, they had to do something!" So then the population must be grateful, although the result would have been that a slaughter took place. The intentions were good and they didn't know any better? Moreover, without protection it would all have been much worse, the government models clearly show that. Anyone who questions that is a conspiracy thinker.

From conspiracy to scandal

Whether scientific evidence will actually make a scandal of conspiracy theory is just the question. The MSM make a scandal, not science. There could have been a scandal for a long time; In the past, scandals have been launched with less evidence.

A scientifically proven scandal that is not declared a scandal by the great media remains a conspiracy theory for the vast majority of the population, just like all the other conspiracy theories.

The situation is comparable to the intended parliamentary survey: those who have helped them to the scandal must now be critical themselves. That of course does not work if mistakes were made with possible consequences that are going to be the imagination, for example if it involves many human lives. That self -examination now appears not to work. Would that perhaps say anything about the severity of errors?

With MSM it is no different: the blunders to be revealed have had a lot of acclaim in the media and the consequences have therefore been worsened. Errors are made, but you have correction mechanisms for that in a democracy: the House of Representatives and the media to start. The MSM have smothered the correction mechanisms. Every valid input was liquidated. Something should also happen to that, but by whom, through the management of those media? Of course, the current responsible people and media owners are not waiting for that.

Imagine now that the State Uitgevers Mediahuis and DPG throws in front of the bus. That actually appeared to have been important sources of disinfection for all the misunderstandings and manipulation of democratic processes, which sent politics in the wrong direction. Would the media involved come up with large headlines of "scandal: MSM misleads population, politics on the wrong leg, killing as a result"? So that never becomes a scandal, for which support is required under precisely that group that is informed by the same media.

Dutch New Titels DPG

Dutch new titters Mediahuis

As long as the media dosing and downplay, with the knowledge drop through ZonMW-missed studies in which a tip of the veil can always be investigated, there is never a total image and the controversial safety of vaccinations remains out of the picture, Maarten Keulemans can shout every time, "you know nothing," that we knew that, really, really, "I knew that.

It is remarkable that that strategy can still be sustained. So that could also stay that way for a very long time. In the Netherlands then. Around us are starting to fall, but with us the bad is apparently deeper.

Without MSM no scandal - but, in the end, a much bigger scandal. Because there are more forces playing, for example in America. The Biden Government is under fire¹Read more on the substack by Robert Malone. The federal judges wrote about the indictment of the censorship and manipulation of information:

If the statements of the prosecutors are true, this case is demonstrably the most large -scale attack on freedom of expression in the history of the United States. In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the federal government, and in particular the defendants mentioned here, would have shamelessly ignored the right to freedom of expression of the first amendment. Although the alleged censorship in this case is almost exclusively focused on conservative expressions, the issues that are discussed here transcend the party boundaries. The right to freedom of expression is not a member of a political party and has no political ideology. The purpose of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment is to maintain an unrestrained marketplace of ideas where the truth will eventually triumph, instead of monopolizing the market, whether it is by the government itself or by a private license holder.

Can those developments in the Netherlands be kept out of the picture? You now read about it in blogs and alternative newspapers, but has something already appeared on MSM about that case? The media renounced total and deliberately. It's not the first time. As an illustration, I remind the mink scandal. Chatgpt tells how it was.

That responsibility is nicely sucked out of the thumb. It is ultimately the media that make or break everything.

References

• 1
  Read more on the substack by Robert Malone