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.

Dark 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 strange is happening. The government suddenly seizes the population's data. Exactly at a time when hard work has been done and piles of data have been collected that could be used to optimize policy. Science is suddenly no longer transparent - at least state science, because we appear to have to make that separation. Political science appears to be a closed bastion of civil servants with the minister at its head. Evaluation is thwarted, not only by withholding data but also by torpedoing an investigative committee and manipulating MSM and social media that should actually emphasize or even demand the necessity of those evaluations.

De staat claimt nu het alleenrecht op alle voor ons vergaarde informatie en behoudt zich het beslisrecht voor over het al dan niet vrijgeven daarvan, alsof ze een autonome entiteit zijn. Alsof je ineens merkt dat de landsgrenzen zijn gebarricadeerd: "Nee sorry, u blijft op eigen terrein, dat vinden we beter voor u." Pardon?

This alone would be a national scandal should be. Why doesn't it always happen? Because the government is able to assure us through the media that they can protect us better this way. Most of the frightened population is very sensitive to this. Most people want to be good, but they must feel well protected to do so. Otherwise they might have to stand up for themselves, protect or defend themselves and then they are no good because then they are not doing it for someone else. So it is not a scandal and it will not become a scandal, that 'protection' from above.

So what is a 'scandal'?

Het woord "schandaal (/schandalig)" komt vijf keer in het interview voor, in de zin van "If research shows that vaccinations can be harmful, that would be a huge scandal." Hier wordt de rol van wetenschap aboutdear and that of the media heavy underDarling. Scientific thinkers assume that with a well-substantiated story we can put everything right in one fell swoop. But those well-substantiated stories have been around for a long time - the available data may be incomplete, but what they suggest all points in the same direction. It has been clear for some time that vaccinations are many times more harmful and less effective than we were told. That further investigation should have been initiated with the utmost urgency.

Zo wordt de stapel rode vlaggen alsmaar hoger en natuurlijk groeit de stapel vervolgvragen mee. Het is de wetenschap zelf die altijd wel weer een los eindje bevraagt "om helemaal zeker te zijn." Dat zal altijd wel zo blijven, daar is het wetenschap voor. Maar voor antwoorden heb je data nodig en die verlossende data worden niet verstrekt, zoals je een kleuter ook niet met lucifers laat spelen. Beter van niet.

Het excuus wordt nu al door deze en gene naar voren gebracht: "Ze deden het om ons te beschermen, ze moesten toch iets doen!" dus dan moet de bevolking dankbaar zijn, al zou het resultaat zijn geweest dat er een slachting heeft plaatsgevonden. De intenties waren toch goed en ze wisten toch niet beter? Bovendien, zonder bescherming was het allemaal veel erger geweest, dat laten de overheidsmodellen duidelijk zien. Wie dat in twijfel trekt is een complotdenker.

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.

Stel je nu even voor dat de Staat uitgevers Mediahuis en DPG voor de bus gooit. Dat blijken eigenlijk belangrijke desinformatiebronnen te zijn geweest voor alle misverstanden en manipulatie van democratische processen waardoor de politiek in de verkeerde richting is gestuurd. Zouden de betrokken media dan met grote koppen komen van "Schandaal: MSM misleidt bevolking, politiek op verkeerde been, doden tot gevolg"? Dat wordt dus nooit een schandaal, daarvoor is draagvlak nodig onder precies die groep die zich door diezelfde media laat informeren.

Dutch New Titels DPG

Dutch new titters Mediahuis

Zolang de media het juist doseren en downplayen, met het kennisdruppelen via ZonMW-geregisseerde studies waarin steeds een tipje van de sluier onderzocht mag worden, er nooit een totaalbeeld komt en de omstreden veiligheid van vaccinaties buiten beeld blijft, kan Maarten Keulemans elke keer roepen: "Zie je wel, dat wisten we allang, eigenlijk niks nieuws, niets aan de hand".

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 there would be no scandal - but, ultimately, an even bigger scandal. Because there are even more forces at play, those in America for example. The Biden administration 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.

Footnotes

• 1
  Read more on the substack by Robert Malone