Ik was bezig om binnen de beperking van 1250 letters een reply op een LinkedIn-comment te bonsaien, toen de post in zijn geheel werd verwijderd op LinkedIn. Dat zag ik op een ander scherm in een reactie op mijn @infopinie-account waar ik de post had gedeeld. Elke beroepsgroep mag op LinkedIn over beroepsdilemma's spreken, om oplossingen vragen of die aanbieden - behalve medici. Je zou dat artikel kunnen zien als een vaktechnische overweging van een huisarts. Het is toch te schandalig voor woorden dat er niet over vaccinaties mag worden nagedacht. LinkedIn had ik nog open op mijn scherm. Hieronder dus integraal het artikel, samen met de vraag van Daniël Tuijnman en mijn reply daarop.
In the meantime, this article is also on his own blog.
A GP's dilemma: do I invite my patients for the umpteenth COVID shot?
A few days ago, Minister Kuipers announced that general practitioners will call on certain groups of people who are seen as vulnerable for a new shot against COVID-19. As general practitioners, we were not informed about this ourselves.
Am I going to cooperate in inviting people for these shots? To this end, the first question is whether that shot is safe for people who are already vulnerable. The dispute about the unexplained excess mortality that the Netherlands currently has has not yet raged out. Independent scientists who want to calculate this have asked for the data, but do not receive it. And that while science is based on questioning each other critically and having your measurements openly tested. So as a GP you have to make your own decision. Many of my colleagues think I'm far too critical and tell me that I have to trust what the government and RIVM say. That doesn't work for me, because I am responsible myself, so I like to think along every now and then, especially when it comes to the safety of my patients. But maybe I'm too stubborn and I need to improve my life.
Let me see how that works.
When I look at the information from the government and RIVM in recent years, which many colleagues say I should simply rely on, I conclude that we have received the following information.
- It may take a few weeks, but then everything will be back to normal. Unfortunately, that took a little longer.
- The vaccines have been 'thoroughly researched'. But the research was carried out from start to finish by the manufacturer itself. It has a staggering track record of fraud, deception and deception and kept its internal security report secret.
- Er komt geen vaccinatieplicht. Maar wie niet geprikt werd moest kort nadien vrezen voor zijn baan, mocht niet meer reizen of deelnemen aan het maatschappelijk leven. Op straffe van uitsluiting kon je je laten testen - maar dan wel met een test die geen besmetting kon aantonen.
- Vaccination has no side effects. That turned out to be a bit more nuanced. They cause, among other things: However, there is a decrease in fertility in men. It recovers after a few months. But what about after a booster or two or three? No one knows.
- Vaccination protects against COVID-19. This turned out to be a miscalculation. You are, even after 4 injections, still susceptible.
- Vaccination gives long-term immunity against COVID-19. This turned out to be based on a misunderstanding. After just a few months, your immune system has decreased considerably. In that respect, you are better off with natural defenses.
- "You do it for someone else": vaccination protects against transmission of COVID-19. Unfortunately, on closer inspection, this was a mistake. After the shot, you can still transmit the virus.
- Vaccination protects against long covid. This comment turned out to be a bit premature: there is no protection against long covid.
In my opinion, critical doctors should regularly evaluate their vision on the basis of practice. Anyone who does that cannot help but conclude that a policy of trusting the government and RIVM was certainly not a good strategy.
I remember a politician who believed that doctors who spread disinformation should be expelled from their profession. But of course I don't.
Therefore, I cannot, should not and will not tell my patients that the vaccine is safe, protects against infection, transmission, long covid or that it has no side effects.
And let's just be honest: I don't think any doctor can do that.
So much for Jan Vingerhoets.
In een poging te ontkennen dat OMT en/of overheid ooit dergelijke uitingen zouden hebben gedaan, werd gevraagd om bronnen...
Naar aanleiding van die vraag ontspon zich een typische wappie-troldiscussie waar niemand op de inhoud ingaat. Het gaat al snel alleen maar over hoe ze op elkaar reageren en wie waarop precies recht heeft qua vraagstelling en antwoorden. Normaal meng ik mij daar niet in maar ik had de post gedeeld op Facebook en Twitter en ik vond de vraag ook niet zo moeilijk te beantwoorden dus vooruit... Even op inhoud proberen te reageren (tegen beter weten in overigens. Maar goed dat die post is weggehaald 😉 )
Nu ik het herlees, wordt het OMT wellicht niet gezien als "officiële" spreekbuis van overheids of rivm-standpunten. Tsja. Alsof we geen staatsomroep hebben en andere media die als boodschapper fungeren om het officële overheidsstandpunt uit te dragen.
Is er wel eens iemand beticht van desinformatie omdat de vaccins te rooskleurig werden afgeschilderd? Wat zegt dat over de koesr die de overheid vaart? Niet overal zijn linkjes van met "bewijs". Bewijs is gewist of wordt verborgen gehouden. De WOB-docs lichten een tipje van de sluier op.
Daniel Tuijnman ✅️ Well, for 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 there are certainly (sometimes repeated) statements from OMT members, HdJonge, Rutte, Dissel, Gommers, etc. The other points have been immediately embraced by the government and thus sanctioned claims by pharmaceutical companies about effectiveness and safety. You will find more about that more here.
1. Snelle werking... Dansen bij Jansen, moet je daar echt een linkje van?
Just came across a video of Gommers so I'll add it. If I see more links I will collect them here.
Talked about the effect of the vaccination campaign in general Gommers over "een paar maanden". Wat dat betreft zat Vingerhoets er met zijn "paar weken" naast - maar ik hoop dat dat niet het niveau is waarop we moeten kibbelen.
2. Safety of vaccines: Lareb continued to report that it saw no connection with thrombosis
3. "Er komt geen vaccinatieplicht". Letterlijk van HdJonge. Zie videootje hiernaast.
4. H de Jonge in the House of Representatives on possible side effects: Subversive disinformation. Images (on several occasions) from the Chamber I suppose familiar. Even parliamentary questions were treated as disinformation.
5. Vaccinatie beschermt tegen COVID-19. Voor 90%, 70%, toen tegen ziek worden, toen wel ziek maar niet zo erg, tegen IC, toen tegen overlijden - maar slechts enkele maanden. Ik weet geen linkje waar de overheid deze miskleunen op een rijtje zet, daarvoor zou je respectieve interviews met ex-OMT-leden op een rijtje moeten zetten. Ik denk aan Bonte, Karoly, Gommers, Bruijning etc. - en ga nou niet zeggen dat OMT geen RIVM of overheid is. Maar om de herinnering op te frissen een videootje waarin het allemaal voorbij komt.
6. "De enige uitweg" klinkt dat als "een zoethoudertje dat het misschien een paar maanden houdt"? Want meer was het niet. (Linkjes te over van de "de enige uitweg", dat dan weer wel. Niet van het openlijk erkennen dat het misleidende informatie was.)
7. "You're doing it for someone else" Do you seriously need a link to that? Then you are really looking for something else, a formal error or something.
8. Long Covid: De overheid kijkt nu of vaccinatie ontregelde afweersystemen weer op het goede spoor zet. Niet alleen blijkt daaruit dat men veronderstelt dat het helpt maar vooral negeren ze daarmee de mogelijkheid dat de vaccins Long Covid ook (mede) zouden kunnen veroorzaken. Waarmee maar weer wordt getoond dat het "veilig", "terdege onderzocht" etc. gewoon niet juist is. Men weet niks, wil niks weten en gaat alleen van gewenste aannames uit.
Group think, ja-knikkers, tunnelvisie, incompetente elite, onwetenschappelijke rommelaars... Het is treurig gesteld met de mensen die het toch zouden moeten hebben van ons vertrouwen. Dat vertrouwen is nu wel verspeeld. We gehoorzamen niet meer zomaar, maar ja, wat niet goedschiks kan, dat moet maar kwaadschiks.
Mariëlla Kunst - Mascha Sponselee - Betty Jansen - Katja Oostergetel - Daniël Tuijnman - Barry Wildhagen - Bert Bosman - Stef Smulders
https://daniel-debunkt.nl/covid-vaccin/de-acht-dikke-duimen-van-jan-vingerhoets/
It would have been nice if you had informed me that you were responding to my question. I note that you have only come up with a source for one point (3), and then only from the first sentence, not from all the things that Vingerhoets makes up around it.
For the rest, I refer you to my blog.
I have read it and will read your update as well.
There is no point in arguing with those people. That someone can seriously pretend that all those statements/images that have come from the government are fantasy, as if we were all not there. It's maddening.
I fear so too, Djaja. Anyone who needs links for this and is not satisfied with, for example, references to verifiable events on the initiative of the government, is not familiar with the matter or simply experiences reality very differently.
In order to come to a discussion, you will have to have a certain common ground. Speaking the same language helps, for example, but in this case a jointly experienced recent history is also essential. That reality has to match up to a certain level, and it clearly does not.
I don't feel called upon to 'synchronize' the facts, I also think that attempts to do so will have little effect. If the references mentioned are not enough to follow the train of thought, we will continue to disagree.
But if anyone wants to take the trouble to scrape together all those links, news items and radio and talk show fragments from OMT members, MPs, Ministers, key influencers... Let us know. But then the objection is probably again: that is not a "Government". Headlines will probably not count either, while that was an important communication channel of the government in the first two years.
Denying undeniable events is difficult to tackle.
That links are indeed needed is evident from statement 1 alone, if you look at the post as Vingerhoets has put it on his own site. He was referring to something completely different from what Anton interpreted.
Maddening indeed. It is also extremely curious. You wonder, what should you think of someone like Daniel Tuijnman? With 17 million Dutch people – not to mention the rest of the world – you have experienced a major crisis for two years. There was no news broadcast or talk show or again all those things were repeated ad nauseam.
disgusting commercials were broadcast, in which children were held guilty for their grandfather in the ICU.
To be honest, I can hardly believe in the good faith of such a person. Of course he knows it all. and he laughs his ass off at us, that we are angry about it. You just wonder, why does someone act like that?
But maybe it's different after all. Is it possibly a form of cognitive dissonance?
Suppose I had taken those injections myself in a fit of madness, and I now find out that I shouldn't have done that. How would I react now. I think that many people who are slowly starting to realize what is really going on, must still get quite tangled up with themselves. You have let yourself be fooled, and there is no way back, those can't get out. What is the human mind going to do then?
I think it's kind of a flight forward, and somewhere, deep down, I understand that.
It can't be true.
And to think that 12.5 million compatriots also have to go through that mental process. What are we going to experience!
The more you beat around the bush, the more unbelievable you become. I do wonder what to do with people like you.
Read my blog post again and do your best to refute what I write. Please come up with sources, because apparently you can't.
https://daniel-debunkt.nl/covid-vaccin/de-acht-dikke-duimen-van-jan-vingerhoets/
@Anton, otherwise take a look at Geenstijl, its archives are easily searchable, and those guys have many hyperlinks to evidence from NPO, newspaper articles, etc. in the relevant articles from the past regarding Covid.
With the help of this, many links should be able to be reconstructed.
Good tip, thanks, but I really lack the time...
Anton, ik ga kijken of ik wellicht wat bij elkaar kan harken….
Tijd ook hier het meest schaarse goed.