Last week, Marcel Levi had to go back on his original promise to Maurice de Hond to participate in a panel discussion. This discussion was scheduled for the premiere of the documentary that reports on the aerosol battle flared up by Maurice in 2020 (There are still tickets, I'm going too). This micro-affair gave a topical hook to a draft article that had been growing for weeks and then shrinking again and again that I just couldn't get done. It just remained an opinion. I'll post some of that below, then I'll be rid of it.
[EDIT: In the comments, many are now focusing on Marcel Levi. This was NOT the intention of my article. We are dealing with a generic problem, in which the incident with Marcel Levi happens to be topical and no more than exemplary of the culture I am trying to characterize. Collectively jumping on a scapegoat is as primitive as sheepishly following an authority. Please try not to hang everything on a puppet immediately (no one is always right).
Strategically, too, that would only antagonize Marcel Levi and people like him and Armand Girbes could well prove to be important links between the Covid regime and the scientifically substantiated opposition. Keep in mind that it also took a while for the coin to drop with Aseem Malhotra.
After all, Marcel Levi's communication so far has already broken through the culture of concealment that we constantly struggle with. The gate of the bastion is far from being lowered, but I'm happy when someone opens a window. So try to see it as edifying, maybe we'll get a finger on it that way.]
We know the main players in the Dutch corona debacle: The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, the RIVM and CBS with the medical/military industrial complex in the background. The representatives of these institutions could never have shined so brightly if they were not surrounded by a circle of decent, well-thinking people. They all have in common that they respect authority, they are civil citizens. Many of their relations, colleagues and acquaintances are themselves in one way or another an authority somewhere in a structure. They trust authorities as they would like to be trusted. A noble and just starting point, in good conscience. At least if you forget about implicit self-interest.
This establishment is committed to maintaining itself. And of course: they are sensible people, so they find reflection very important, in order to 'learn' from it. But if substantiated criticism of the system raises questions not only about its fallibility but also about undeniable mistakes that have been defended with fire and sword, then that goes a bridge too far. Then the defenders of wrong policies come into focus and they turn out to be colleagues, amici and colleagues in similar positions, somewhere in the top layers of the same or a related hierarchy.
Anyone who saw how the disaster unfolded and was part of a hierarchy sanctioned by the government remained silent. While there was still plenty of reason to speak: the aerosol deception, the overestimated corona threat, the impossible vaccine safety, the fallacies, manipulated infection rates, an abused PCR test, censorship of sensible medication, the human rights-ignoring enthusiasm with which vaccines were forced, illegality of policy, the sabotaged debate, etc. Specialists could all see, even in the media, that something was not right in their own field, but they had confidence, so for the rest they assumed that it would be right. (Also consider the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.) "We hebben het wel over instituten, hè" en "Ze staan er toch maar" en "Ze weten heus wel wat ze doen."
Decent people don't snitch on each other, they have too much respect for each other for that. It is also a matter of decorum: if you mean something in your own bubble, then you are simply not the right person to saw off another prominent person up to the ankles. Let the foot soldiers take care of that because before you know it you as a commander are in the line of fire yourself and that doesn't help anyone, you are too important for that, at least that's what you think: without you everything becomes rudderless and that is not in the interest of the State.
No one in a privileged position is looking for 'hassle'.
Marcel Levi legt het duidelijk uit als hij beschrijft hoe hij over reflectie denkt: Reflectie is weliswaar belangrijk... "But I don't think it's a good thing if the position and integrity of individual scientists is discussed (of whom I assume that they acted in good conscience at the time), which leads to polarization and can even affect their safety."
Even if it seems that not everyone has acted in good conscience, as part of the establishment you continue to assume that. Scholars who, in their right minds, demonstrably write harmful nonsense are allowed to do so because we assume that they are acting in good conscience. They are allowed to get away with acts that could also give rise to criminal review, if only because of the disastrous consequences.
Let me have great difficulty with that.
Volgens Levi mag de positie en integriteit van individuele wetenschappers niet ter sprake komen. "Competentie" is een beter woord dan "positie en integriteit" want het gaat erom hoe iemand een positie invult, niet om de positie die iemand heeft. Voor het bekleden van een verantwoordelijke positie heb je iemand nodig die competent is. "Persoonlijke integriteit" en "Handelen naar eer en geweten" zijn noodzakelijke eigenschappen maar geen voldoende voorwaarden. Ze staan niet garant voor het nemen van juiste beslissingen of voor al dan niet competent zijn. Als iemands "eer en geweten" niet overeenkomt met de richtlijnen voor wetenschappelijke integriteit, dan gaat het al verkeerd. Bij het excuus "Hij bedoelde het toch goed" wordt vergeten dat belangrijke misdaden tegen grote delen van bevolkingen zijn voortgekomen uit goede bedoelingen van de aanstichters: het communisme, het kapitalisme, een verenigd Europa, het verspreiden van het Christendom, het verspreiden van de Islam, het brengen van beschaving en democratie: allemaal net zoals volksgezondheid goede bedoelingen, naar eer en geweten doorgevoerd.
As I understand it, those in high places are above the law because their colleagues don't want to forfeit that same privilege. They do not like to undermine the authority principle because they owe their own status to it. People keep their hands above each other's heads out of their own interests. We'll see if that holds up. Of course, decision makers can make mistakes. However, these errors may not arise from negligence, conflict of interest or covering up previous errors, to name a few. Look at the Rules for scientific integrity just think about it.
So merciless reflection might well discredit those government scientists. In any case, discredit is undesirable according to Marcel Levi. Regardless of whether they were Wrong because they made the desired sound. Whether that was the result of a faulty system or that they were only defending their own positions.
Levi past hier het argumentatiepatroon toe dat Andreas Voss ook gebruikte: "Druppeltheorie is de basis. Een onderzoeksvoorstel dat dit in twijfel trekt, zou niet eens geaccepteerd worden." (source) Dat is de stem van een cultuur die de status quo wenst te handhaven. "Het handelen van wetenschappers is correct want naar eer en geweten. Reflectie die dat gegeven in twijfel trekt, vind ik niet goed." Het paradigma is heilig, inclusief alle dogma's die ooit bij gebrek aan beter zijn ontstaan.
And that while society needs people of that stature, those intellectual government thinkers, precisely to recognize and interpret lies and fallacies, to guarantee transparency, to keep science pure. Decision-makers and advisors need to know and, above all, understand what is going on, so that they can identify what is not in line with it. They bear a heavy responsibility. Also in a broader sense and also when a new dynamic requires it.
If it turns out that we are dealing with experts who parrot each other without understanding the subject matter or the implications of their considerations, then we are dealing with incompetent charlatans - even though they have parroted each other to the best of their knowledge. There is a lack of discouraging incentives for these types. They don't even have to justify themselves.
Scientists and researchers have thus had the freedom to defend untenable and unscientific positions with an unsubstantiated statement, just take the 'safe and effective' vaccine propaganda or the zoonotic disease and the associated drip fable.
The entire corona period is characterized by obscure models and incomplete data, something that the KNAW, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, could have taken into account. Or alternatively the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), an organization that has not exactly sought publicity over the past four years. I have followed most corona-related issues quite closely, but the NWO...? The Dutch Organization for Scientific Research did not speak out when Dutch scientific research was misused for improper purposes. It may not have been part of their duties.
Het was dan ook opmerkelijk dat de voorzitter van de NWO, Marcel Levi, in eerste instantie zijn medewerking had toegezegd aan een paneldiscussie, te houden na de première van de documentaire "Dood door schuld". Die film behandelt aerosolenstrijd van Maurice de Hond. Levi heeft vermoedelijk gedacht: "Ach ja, dat aerosolenverhaal, zo gaat het soms in de wetenschap, een idee blijft weleens wat langer hangen dan had gemoeten... daar red ik mij wel uit en bovendien kunnen we ons beroepen op de wetenschappelijke twijfel die er nog steeds is. En met de suggestieve titel 'Dood door schuld?' plaatst de documentaire zichzelf eigenlijk al tussen het wappistische 'tribunalengeroep' uit rechts-extremistische hoek. Eitje dus."
Until he saw the film in preparation and realized the undeniable blunder of his peers, which might have prompted him to find out for himself, only to find out that the drip narrative had been taken down much earlier than in 2020. Maurice was the only one here who had done science and research.
And he may also have seen that the virologist world kept the drop-down narrative afloat in order to be able to continue to do a lot of cheap research. After all, there is an almost unworkable security regime for dealing with airgenic viruses. Not to mention the alarming military interest in airborne bioweapons, especially if the research is carried out in a country that is considered an unreliable enemy by governments. With the knowledge of the government and secret services (more information here). Perhaps it would be better to keep your mouth shut about such matters.
Someone from the establishment who gets wind of this and is intelligent enough to assess the implications will then be faced with an immense decision: do I keep up the lies or do I reject my peers and place myself outside the system that we have all so carefully built? Or should I just keep my mouth shut? With a possible ministerial post on the horizon, it would take courage to provide clarity. And it would offer hope to everyone who did speak out - but yes...
Retreating and watching the game unfold is the safest choice. And that is what almost everyone has thought in recent years, which is why we look back on a terrible period, full of deceit and deception with harmful consequences in all areas. Corrective voices came exclusively from the bottom of the system hierarchy and thus lacked authority, authority that is measured by position by position, not by substantive arguments. But the leaders we should have been talking about, they were silent. The few who spoke up were dismissed with the help of the media.
It was a horrible period that made it clear that distrust is a necessary condition when dealing with authorities and positions of power.
Yet people still argue for 'trust'. Trust without control is gullibility. Gullibility has proven fatal. Even if the establishment itself is convinced of the good intentions and has always looked after the store well in the past. In changing circumstances, good is not always good enough.
What have these changing circumstances led to: people who were blackmailed into taking medication, children who were injected with poorly researched gene-related substances, nonsense measures that split society, the term 'science' that was regularly misused, censorship, honest doctors who were threatened and punished, etc. etc. And all this after substantiated warnings were brushed off the table, partly with the assistance of the media.
It wasn't just the media that collaborated. For the next post I will save a list of approximately 15 institutes/sectors, each of which had reason to protest against the corona policy, because it crossed the domains they managed. They are government-funded institutions that failed to protect citizens from the government. That is what fundamental rights are about. And then there are still voices who want 'trust' back from the citizen, while things have gone wrong because of misplaced trust.
We zitten nu eenmaal met Foute mensen op de foute posities, dat gebeurt bij gebrek aan wantrouwen en zonder systemische controle. Ze kunnen hun gang gaan want ze voelen zich vanwege hun functie ontslagen van elke verantwoordelijkheid, zolang ze elkaar de hand boven het hoofd houden. 'Dood door schuld' is één ding maar dood door roekeloosheid ("we prikken ondanks alles gewoon door"), meervoudige doodslag, en als het tegen beter weten in is gedaan misschien wel serie- of massamoord... het is allemaal niet niks. Voor een juridisch lijstje zie de declaration which was done in the UK by MP Andrew Bridgen.
Het staat vast dat op basis van oncontroleerbare berekeningen gezonde mensen zijn geofferd om kwetsbare te redden, maakte Eline van den Broek duidelijk. Zij zag "geen effect van vaccinatie op sterfte". Andere onderzoeken wezen uit dat er goede bescherming tegen Covidsterfte was. Als beide constateringen kloppen, is die bescherming dus door een ander vaccinatie-effect weer gecompenseerd met andere soorten sterfte, bij andere personen.
Naast de gezondheidseffecten is er sociale en financiële chaos veroorzaakt, haat gezaaid, desinformatie geïnstitutionaliseerd - kortom er is een waaier van wandaden te bedenken waar deze fatsoenlijke mensen zich schuldig of medeplichtig aan hebben gemaakt door niet op te staan en te spreken "omdat dat wel eens iemand in diskrediet zou kunnen brengen".
Even more worrisome is that future officials have now seen that there is no accountability. You can make it as colorful as you want: you can just get away with it, as long as you can bend the media to your will and no one will blow out of the school. And it works, as it turns out.
That doesn't make me feel good.
There is another escape: the conclusions of the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, which will undoubtedly be dismissed as conspiracy theories by parties that do not have a seat on it (I am thinking of D'66).
And further: legal measures? Will our judges go free, our Public Prosecutor...? Although there seems to have been enough injustice, I have no idea to what extent this translates into criminal offences. This partly involves punishing people who have exhibited harmful behavior. The signaling function for future dignitaries is more important. Punishment measures will hopefully serve as an incentive for (self) reflection and (self) correction among scientists and policy makers. Also among themselves. That's not 'clicking', that's civic duty.
If Marcel Levi had the ability to keep his back straight, then we would have an excellent candidate to become Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport. Now it turns out that he is still afraid of criticism from his profession (but then again, those who are afraid also get beaten, Maurice said in his biography) and he drops out.
But before that he was 2x with Maurice his Dog in the Pod (cast) and it became an animated conversation, but later also then Levi claimed that he was not aware of the fuss that would exist around Maurice in NL in his column in Parool.
In short: don't let him become Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport in the next cabinet.
Armand Girbes seems like a good candidate to me
Armand Girbes has always been very explicit about the unreliability of the PCR test.
I think he's awake (at least as far as climate change, woke and the wtp are concerned), but he hasn't (yet) – that I know – spoken out against the covid deception. That would probably cost him his career at this stage???
Dear Mr. Teunissen, dear Anton,
I read your piece on MDH. By far the best that has appeared there. Below, enough others testify to the hope of decency, of values above all of truth, of truth, that these kinds of publications create. I wholeheartedly endorse it.
The foundation "Recht op Recht" has filed a lawsuit through the Leeuwarden court against Hugo Rutte, Ernst etc + Bill Gates and Alexander Boerla, Google them and see the summonses they have all received in the meantime! Also in Germany, a trial is being prepared against 599 Corona criminals! The state of Texas has also filed a lawsuit against Pfizer, Arizona has banned ALL jabs! [ see also TKP.at The Expose Follow.it The Defender !
Gates has called in his lawyers. Well, the State Attorney Pels Rijcken. He believes that he only has to appear in court in his home country.
"On February 21, 2024, Bill Gates' lawyer started separate proceedings (= incident in the main case) against the plaintiffs, in which Bill Gates argues that in these proceedings on the merits, the Dutch court is not competent to rule on Bill Gates." ( ) "What will an oral hearing (= pleading) in the incident before the court entail? Now that Bill Gates has raised (initiated) an incident (separate proceedings) in the proceedings on the merits, the proceedings on the merits have been suspended. The court will first have to give judgment in the incident in order to be able to continue the proceedings on the merits. In other words, the court will now first rule on its jurisdiction to rule on Bill Gates in these proceedings on the merits. After that, the proceedings on the merits against the defendants – with or without Bill Gates – will be resumed."
Source: https://rechtoprecht.online/4e-nieuwsbrief/
You're absolutely right, Anton. The circle is closed. I'll be there on Tuesday, by the way. Competence, that's what it's all about. Competence also includes being open to other ideas and perspectives. And above all, dare to recognize mistakes.
I stand by it. Everything, absolutely everything about this fake pandemic was wrong.
I actually want to post something about lack of substantive discussion. If anyone can tell me where my image is wrong, I would like to hear about it.
Have sent this (request from Wendy Mittemeijer) to the Corona research committee:
Dear Committee, I hereby inform you about my experiences and opinion regarding the Covid period of recent years. As a rational thinking person (ICT background) I have been amazed by the incoherent strategy around the Covid-19 pandemic over the past 4 years.
I'll keep it short, if there is interest in more details I'm happy to cooperate.
From some skepticism in the beginning, I slowly moved to someone who no longer trusts the government.
The note from Bruins, the press conferences, it all came across as very threatening, but also unbelievable. But when I looked at the figures, it raised all kinds of questions for me. Questions that were not asked in the traditional media. An IFR, for example, can only be determined if you know how many people are actually infected. There were no such figures. Just assumptions based on vague models. The models of the RIVM were absurd and lacked any relation to reality. I saw a huge gap between what was really happening and how it was presented by politics and the media. I was flabbergasted that so few people saw this.
The argument 'with today's knowledge' does not apply either. Already in the first half of 2020, there were renowned scientists (Ioannidis, for example) who reported that the IFR of Covid-19 did not differ much from a regular flu. But they were cancelled at the time, deliberately sidelined.
In December 2020 we got zeff Covid. Validated with a test at the GGD. I then started looking for natural immunity and started to delve more into the functioning of the immune system. By the way, Covid was no more than a mediocre flu for us. Which is not to trivialize it. People have died from it.
The injections became available in February/March. Since I was 60+, I quickly received an invitation. I called GGD to ask how an injection would help me since I already had Covid and therefore had to have built up natural immunity. They didn't get any further than 'it's just better'.
At the time, the RIVM website still stated that the vaccinations would be more effective than natural immunity. I never believed that (article in Nature at the end of 2020), and this text has since disappeared. In other words, disinformation.
After that, I was officially 'unvaccinated'. Any substantiated criticism was laughed off or people got angry. In the meantime I had understood how the mRNA 'vaccines' were introduced into the body (via lipid Nano particles). I have suffered from not being vaccinated, but never regretted it. The way in which we have been portrayed is scandalous. Hugo de Jonge as Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport has caused an enormous amount of social damage. Whether it's stupidity, wickedness, or ignorance, I don't know. In the meantime, we also know that the vaccinations do not stop infection. That seems rather essential for a vaccine. Not safe and not effective.
The CTB was the absolute low point. It is a great shame that the majority took part in this. Not only discriminatory but also totally pointless and probably counterproductive (people thought they were 'safe').
The soap opera surrounding the curfew court case can be seen in Orwell's 1984. Arrange an appeal within a day. There was only a very small circle of protests. Another idiotic (there is no decent scientific description for this) measure that should never have happened.
Despite clear signs that the disadvantages of the mRNA vaccines may outweigh the benefits, vaccination is still continuing.
The whole Covid narrative is wrong. Why were effective medicines banned and ridiculed (Ivermectin as a horse dewormer), were doctors even fined (that has also been reversed by the court), where do we see that in the news?. Face masks that were previously described as not working suddenly became mandatory. Lockdowns against a respiratory virus? Madness, and also very harmful.
Government information was manipulative. In times of crisis or fear, a government must radiate calm. Governments around the world have spread fear.
A public debate is not possible. Anyone who criticizes the policy is labeled as wappie or extreme right-wing. What has come out of FOI requests is nothing short of shocking. The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport had a direct influence on social media and other major news channels. De Jonge could carry out propaganda. None of this is what I mean by a democracy. The Disinformation Think Tank is another example of something that doesn't fit into a democratic system.
Thanks to the complete lack of any logic in the pandemic policy, my trust in the government has fallen to an all-time low. Worse, I feel manipulated and fooled. Maybe I'm completely wrong, then I'm open to an explanation of how all these measures were effective. All I'm looking for is a substantive conversation, rather than hysteria.
I hope that the committee will leave room for criticism and debate and will not exclude dissenters from the outset.
Good letter, Cees!
Totally agree!
And of course, those responsible for corona have to answer for themselves, but you are not blind. The train rumbles on. Ukraine, middle east, WHO treaty, censorship measures. Corona was 'only' part of the big plan. Nothing happens by accident or chance.
Dear Mr. Mul, dear Cees,
A wonderful analysis, building on Anton's equally great piece.
I can only conclude that none of this is based on coincidence. Never before have governments worldwide spoken so unanimously and with exactly the same wording about the threats of Covid19.
I can only conclude that we are not governed from The Hague, nor from Brussels.
We can shout "shame" and demand justice, or ask for a substantive conversation in all reasonableness, but we will not get it.
The perpetrators of this mismanagement have now largely disappeared from the picture and the population does not seem interested: the Olympic Games have already started, it is holiday time, the American elections are coming up.
It is to be hoped that there will be some kind of collective awakening, but I have a hard time thinking about it.
An indecent human being
https://maartenleeflang.blogspot.com/2024/02/inhoudsopgave-in-opbouw-profiel_11.html?m=1
(I miss mentioning the Ministry of Justice and Justice and the NCTV in the corona debacle. Both have a dominant presence in the Catshuis consultation from the outset. Or do you fit them under the medical/military industrial complex?)
I will only mention the names that we often saw in the media. In this model, I see politics, including various ministries and the House of Representatives and, as a logistics professional, the NCTV, more as part of the establishment than as the source of the deceptions. They facilitated, although I also know that they soon got carried away by the toys that were later kept in the 'toolbox of the Min. v. Justice'.
Sometime this week or next weekend, another post will follow with a list of bodies that could or should have intervened, and why. Politics and the NCTV are also mentioned there.
Very well expressed, Anton, taken from my heart!
What I'm missing is a more prominent place in your article for the media (mainstream then..). Here and there you mention 'helped by the media', but they should have been the first to ask critical questions about the policy. From the beginning of the 'plandemic', they obediently nodded along with all the nonsense that was spread and even eagerly joined in with fear-mongering. From that moment on, I stopped watching TV.
I also miss what was mentioned by several 'real' scientists: that it is a 'mortal sin' to vaccinate in the middle of a p(l)andemia, also with a substance of which the consequences in the short term and certainly in the medium to long term were totally unclear to the public.
Furthermore, all kudos for this article!
In an article in preparation, I have reserved a large block for the media.
Very good blogs on this site!
Good to hear!
Sie haben es doch nicht gewusst?
Incidentally, I do not believe that Marion Koopmans has "acted in good conscience".
Maarten Keulemans does, but to be honest, I don't know if that's for laughing or crying.
Whoever convinces up to IQ 110 has the masses with him (above that is not important) and, let's face it, who better to defend a democide than someone who has 110 himself?
Perfect lap dog.
If Maarten Keulemans has really acted in good conscience, then I don't understand why he was appointed by his employer in the position he is now performing!!
Something like the Joe Biden of the Volkskrant, a joke, totally unbelievable.
Excellent summary and entirely in line with what logical considerations revealed to me almost from the beginning (when promising early treatment was banned): this stinks, this can't be true. For me, that was the first piece of a jigsaw puzzle, and new facts and events could effortlessly be put together like puzzle pieces to previous ones.
About Levi: I've heard him a few times – back in the Netherlands. I was stunned that he would be there on Tuesday. I think I heard Maurice nominate him (Levi) as Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport. That's one of the rare moments when I didn't understand Maurice. In the meantime, this part also fits seamlessly into the puzzle.
Again: I think the way in which things are analyzed and described by Anton is great.
Beautifully written, Anton.
You describe how deeply corrupted the Netherlands is, how in the end people only think about their own hachie and are literally about corpses. It's tough, very disappointing and insane.
People will, in the end, only tell the truth when they have stepped out of the world in which they earned their living. That's why I have an incredible respect for real scientists like Geert Vandenbossche, Aseem Malhotra and Mattias Desmet, who have literally been vomited out by their professional brothers and sisters, but nevertheless continue to research and proclaim the truth.
In the movie 'The Cold Truth' you see that only the pensioners dare to talk. One female scientist has quit her job early, because her children had been telling her for years: 'Stop it, it's destroying you'.
You, along with many others, are doing an excellent job, Anton! Thank you for that! At the end of the month I will think of you again. 🙂 It is very important that we continue to speak out. One day the truth will be published, also on TV and the mainstream newspapers. We will have to believe in that, dear ones! Justice will prevail in the end!!
And folks, also support the trial of the perpetrators of this biggest human rights violation since WWII. Check out rechtoprecht.online and transfer some money!
Elisa, you call Aseem Malhotra. Totally agree. I saw a testimony of him on Substack at the trial that is currently underway in Helsinki. Against the Finnish government over the Covid 'policy'. I fear it has been removed by censorship. Can't find it anymore. Does anyone on this site know more about this?
I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
No stone left unturned here in my testimony in the district court of Helsinki exposing likely the greatest corporate crime, medical mistake and damage to population health of our lifetime.
https://twitter.com/draseemmalhotra/status/1779770434654740748?s=12
Inderdaad meteen van YT verwijderd. Ik hoop dat hij vele malen opnieuw geüploaded zal worden!
Still to be seen on twitter. Eloquent man, who only brings facts. Lurid facts, but facts. Removed from youtube. Disgusting.
Can we call that a conspiracy? Yes, we can call that a conspiracy.
Hope gives life. This site and most of the commenters give me hope. Thank you for that! What struck me back in the spring of 2020 was that 'honour and conscience' was completely lacking in most. In nursing homes, in the ICUs, the university where our child studied and never received a response to the letter that our child was ashamed of the people of this university because they should know better (the WUR has become WEF-HUB as it turned out). The other scientists in our family also had to look for other jobs, and much more misery. At first I could hardly believe that it was completely planned until a good acquaintance told me that there had been a date with a high military officer in 2018 and then some more dates and this person kept telling me that something was going to happen. They kept in touch as friends and in January 2020 the soldier told them: "it will start soon". In March 2020, my good friend was walking through the supermarket with a cleaned trolley at a distance of 1.5 meters from other customers and suddenly the realization came: 'This is it!' This close acquaintance has also protected as many family and friends as possible. The senior military officer only admitted after retirement that the suspicion of 'This is it!' is correct. I hope that a lot of people will have problems with their conscience, even before they retire.
Thank you for this very good, balanced article
We are at a tipping point, that much is clear. The fact that unbelievable things have happened is becoming more and more apparent. Especially abroad, which doesn't really surprise me. In the Netherlands, people are now mainly busy concealing the evidence. Apparently it is not realized that if the latter ever comes to light, and it does, it would already lead to a doubling of the sentence in a 'normal' trial.
The question is whether this turnaround will really take hold. The stakes are so high. It is inevitable that everything will be done to keep the big debacle small. Maybe (I hope not!) another generation will pass, and we will have to wait until the protagonists have disappeared from the scene.
I think the worst thing about the whole corona thing is that the trust and/or gullibility of large parts of the population has been deliberately abused.
If you dive into the virology textbooks, you quickly see how wafer-thin the story was that people tried to pin on people's sleeves. But who does that, see if it's really all right? They must have known that, that the majority would just walk along, without asking questions. And with that constant bombardment, via radio and TV and along the highway ("together..... etc.")
Either way, our society is broken. Personally, but I am not alone, I will never trust a government or any other agency again.
Excellent analysis.
The phenomenon that the scientific caste and established power hold hands over each other's heads and that a fierce (social) struggle is needed to achieve a paradigm (now: narrative) shift was first described by T.S. Kuhn in 1962. Too bad he's not mentioned...... https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_structuur_van_wetenschappelijke_revoluties .
And for the record: in the background there is certainly a lack of awareness of the fact that Rule of Rescue thinking leads to immoral outcomes if applied on a large scale. Utilitarianism should be applied as a guideline for public policy. Some reactions indicate that they don't understand this either. If you apply the Rule of Rescue, you are certainly not morally inferior or corrupt or the like. RoR thinking on an individual level is a very nice trait of people. Doctors have to do that even with regard to individual patients.
But again: on a macro level, this leads, unintentionally and usually completely unconsciously, to very immoral decisions. Read this:
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271918715_Reconciling_cost-effectiveness_with_the_rule_of_rescue_the_institutional_division_of_moral_labour].
This insight is crucial to avoid similar policy mistakes in the future. Of course, in addition to preventing the re-spreading of scientific quackery by RIVM, OMT, Universities and our government.
But really: even if those scientific mistakes are no longer made, RoR thinking will still dominate if there has not been a broad social political discussion about it first. And so capital blunders are committed.
Dear Jan, unfortunately I don't know the literature you mention. But then again, I didn't even know the Rule of Rescue as such, but I have also expressed my concerns about that phenomenon before: you just saw it happen.
If you feel the need to contribute a bit about it, you are more than welcome!
Do I have to email that to you?
The topic RoR vs. RoR Utilitarianism really deserves mega attention. Because it is a very mundane moral dilemma that is totally misapplied on a macro scale. Emotions and RoR dominate there with disastrous results.
Willingly! I'll send you an email and we'll see where it leads.
Also in that book with the title The Most Dangerous Doctor on Earth, Kennedy JR describes very well that science there in the US was dying before the corona time and even longer ago. What you read in that book was very clearly reflected here in the corona time. The puppets of science we had to trust, because they had consensus. If the whole of science has consensus, then there is no need to think anymore and science is nothing more than a theater with the Government actors and the science actors.
Very enlightening article. Wondered for 3 years why the House of Representatives is still there.
What I wonder is why Maurice de Hond didn't ask Armand Girbes for his meeting in Zeist, when Levi didn't do it. Wondering if this doctor would let me down or not.
Nice comments on this piece, Anton. I'm so curious why someone gives a thumbs down. That's fine, of course, but why? Does anyone disagree with the article? If so, what are the substantive objections? Is it a government troll?
Make no mistake, 'we' are still a minority. A small minority (I think).
For a while I always had 1 thumbs down on every post. I suspect it's a one-man operation. I know some people who could do that, although most of them seem too intelligent to me. "So, I'll give him a thumbs up, he'll learn that." And then being beaten 50-1 or more every time, who wants that? Puzzling.
The plandemic was a pressure cooker that exposed the corruption of "science" even more. Just think of the many myths that have been kept in the air for a long time: dangers of sunlight, healthy vegetable oil / bad animal fats, cholesterol, statins, the disk of 5 etc. etc.
And let's not forget traditional vaccines, which also appear to be very negotiable. A thorough clean-up wouldn't hurt there either.
But always better than the MRNA platform that is in the starting blocks.
Unfortunately, there is no prospect of remediation because more and more are being added. Small babies who can receive the RS vaccine in 2025. Apart from the harmfulness to their health, I read with amazement the costs (there are no benefits, see point nl). "It starts with 19 million euros made available by the government and the government expects to be able to save 16 million euros in healthcare costs." A baby with a cold benefits most from food that forms less mucus and this way you always avoid the need for a doctor. Again, this is a vaccine against a cold virus. These viruses are known to mutate quickly. And even now, it concerns a few high earners, including P Bruijning – Verhagen, who also regularly appeared in the media during the corona period. Fortunately, I have very sensible children, but they have a hard time protecting their offspring.
The "Technical Briefing" by Van Dissel in the 2nd Chamber on 4-4 was objective, but also selective.
E.g. BMR is a relative success story. So he went very deep into that. But it is not about preventing mortality, but mainly about the burden of disease (ICU admission) and parents who do not want to stay at home for a sick child.
But whooping cough is a bad case. There is no absolute protection against encephalitis (it is "only" approx. 70%). Parents are unfairly "lulled to sleep" by the vaccine, thinking that their child can no longer get encephalitis. Totally incorrect. Better information is in order about that 70%.
Gideon van Meijeren, on the other hand, makes a slip (there is no intravenous vaccination at all!).
He should have simply asked the following:
Dear Secretary of State, would you like to provide the 2nd Chamber and all parents with a complete cost+risk/benefit analysis of each of the more than 10 vaccines? I think Mona Keijzer asked a similar question later. Very good. That has to be put on the table objectively. Then 3 vaccinations are dropped (as evidenced by masterclasses in vaccinology, where the facts are honestly presented by first-hand scientists. Also from RIVM).
Gideon, by the way, didn't say "intravenously." He was concerned about the vaccine that ends up in the blood of children through the injections. He phrased that as "injected into the blood." It's a pity that FvD always looks for it in hyperbole, which leads to unnecessary semantic discussions.
The cost/benefit analysis of RS vaccination indicates that it costs 90k/qaly. So too expensive.
"The ICER of seasonal immunization with catch-up is €31,000/QALY.
To know what the catch-up costs extra compared to seasonal immunization, the differences in QALYs (37) and costs must be
(€3.3 million) between 'seasonal immunisation' and
'seasonal immunisation plus catch-up'. This results in an ICER of completed
€90,000/QALY. Because the committee believes that children who are outside the
RSV season are born have an equal right to protection
against RSV as children born during the season
(principle of equality), she advocates seasonal immunization with catch-up.
The net cost of this program is relatively low (€2.7 million)."
Well, that doesn't meet the standard of 20k. Yet it is done. In my opinion, this is a reason for the 2nd Chamber to ask questions about it.
Source: https://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/onderwerpen/vaccinaties/alle-adviezen-over-vaccinaties/immunisatie-tegen-rsv-in-het-eerste-levensjaar
Your amazement and cooled anger is very well expressed in your piece Anton
My general feeling is about the pretensions and arrogant certainties that have been poured out of us and are poured out on us as if we were educating simpletons. And in a certain sense we (pluralis modestiae) have been, basking for too long in a 'cool country' without realizing that there should always be suspicion of those in power, or rather of those who really have and direct the power.
Fortunately and unfortunately, we do not have the experience that was normal in Eastern European countries, namely that a government is in principle not to be trusted and that it is only interested in maintaining power at the expense of a humane and desirable society. Yes, it has been a hard wake-up in recent years, but falling asleep will not happen again.