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.]
TL; DR? Click here to read the ChatGPT summary, in which the sharp edges have been neatly filed down and the tenor remains reasonably intact.
Introduction
In the Netherlands, a number of important organisations were involved during the corona crisis, including the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS), the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), and Statistics Netherlands (CBS). These institutions were supported by a background of institutions and industries, and were surrounded by a circle of respectable citizens who tended to respect and trust authority.
The Role of the Establishment
The establishment, made up of members of these main organizations and their supporters, focused heavily on maintaining the status quo. While reflection was considered important, criticism that pointed to fundamental errors or shortcomings was often rejected or strongly defended by peers within related and similar hierarchical structures.
Culture of Silence versus Reflection
Within the government-approved hierarchies, a culture of silence prevailed about various abuses. Even specialists who noticed irregularities in their field often remained silent out of a deep-seated trust in the system. Marcel Levi, president of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), emphasized the importance of reflection without questioning the integrity of individual scientists, in order to avoid polarization and security threats. This position shows how the principle of authority and mutual protection prevail within the scientific and governmental environment.
Dilemmas and legal considerations
The article also explores the ethical and legal dilemmas faced by individuals within these structures. It discusses how well-intentioned actions can lead to serious consequences, and how protecting colleagues is often considered more important than taking responsibility for mistakes. The discussion about the criminality of certain actions and the role of judges is also touched upon.
Conclusion
Finally, the impact of the corona policy is discussed, with attention to the social, financial and moral consequences of the decisions that have been made. It reflects on the need for distrust of authorities and the possible legal consequences for those involved, critically assessing the responsibility and actions of high-ranking officials, especially with a view to the future.
We know the key players in the Dutch corona debacle: The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) and Statistics Netherlands (CBS) with the medical/military industrial complex in the background. The representatives of these institutions would never have been able to shine so brightly if they had not been surrounded by a circle of decent, right-thinking people. What they all have in common is that they respect authority, they are well-behaved citizens. Many of their relations, colleagues, acquaintances are themselves in one way or another authority somewhere in a structure. They trust authorities as they want to be trusted. A noble and just starting point, to the best of our knowledge and 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 reflection is very important to them, to 'learn' from it. But if substantiated criticism of the system raises questions not only about its fallibility but also about undeniable failures that have been defended with fire and sword, then that is a bridge too far. Then the defenders of Wrong Policy come into sharp focus and they turn out to be professional brothers, 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're talking about institutes, aren't we?" and "They're just there anyway" and "They know what they're doing."
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 generous position is looking for 'hassle'.
Marcel Levi explains it clearly when he describes how he thinks about reflection: Reflection is important... "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.
According to Levi, the position and integrity of individual scientists should not be discussed. "Competence" is a better word than "position and integrity" because it's about how someone fills a position, not about the position someone has. To be in a position of responsibility, you need someone who is competent. "Personal integrity" and "Acting in good conscience" are necessary qualities but not sufficient conditions. They do not guarantee that you will make the right decisions or that you will or will not be competent. If someone's "honour and conscience" does not correspond to the guidelines for scientific integrity, then things are already going wrong. The excuse 'He meant well' forgets that important crimes against large sections of the population have been the result of the good intentions of the instigators: communism, capitalism, a united Europe, the spread of Christianity, the spread of Islam, the bringing of civilization and democracy: all good intentions, just like public health, carried out in good conscience.
As I understand it, high-ranking people are above the law because their colleagues do not want to forfeit that same privilege. They don't like to undermine the principle of authority, because they owe their own status to it. People keep their hands above each other's heads out of self-interest. We'll see if that holds up. Of course, decision-makers can make mistakes. However, these errors must not be the result of negligence, conflicts of interest or the obfuscation of previous mistakes, for example. Watch 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 applies the argumentation pattern that Andreas Voss also used: "Drip theory is the basis. A research proposal that questions this would not even be accepted." (source) That is the voice of a culture that wishes to maintain the status quo. "The actions of scientists are correct because they are in good conscience. I don't think it's a good thing to have a reflection that calls that into question." The paradigm is sacred, including all the dogmas that have ever arisen for lack of anything better.
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 parroting each other without understanding the subject matter or the implications of their considerations, then we are dealing with incompetent charlatans – even if they have parroted each other in good conscience. 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 propositions with an unsubstantiated certainty, just take the 'safe and effective' vaccine propaganda or the zoonotic excuse and the related dripping fable.
The entire corona period has been characterised by obscure models and incomplete data, something that the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) could have taken to heart. Or else the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), an organisation that has not exactly sought publicity for the past four years. I've been following most corona-related issues pretty closely, but the NWO...? The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research did not speak up when Dutch scientific research was misused for improper purposes. It must not have been part of their duties.
It was therefore remarkable that the chairman of the NWO, Marcel Levi, had initially agreed to participate in a panel discussion, to be held after the premiere of the documentary "Death by Guilt". That film deals with Maurice de Hond's battle of aerosols. Levi must have thought: "Oh well, that aerosol story, that's how it sometimes goes in science, an idea sometimes sticks around a little longer than it should have... I can get out of that and, moreover, we can invoke the scientific doubt that still exists. And with the evocative title 'Death by guilt?', the documentary actually places itself among the wappy 'tribunal cries' from right-wing extremists. So it's a piece of cake."
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, is then faced with an immense decision: do I keep up the lies or do I dismiss my peers and place myself outside the system that we have all so carefully built? Or do I just keep my mouth shut? With a possible ministerial post on the horizon, it would take guts to bring 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.
Nevertheless, there is still a plea for 'trust'. Trust without control is credulity. Gullibility has proved deadly. Even if the establishment itself is convinced of the good intentions and has always looked after the store in the past. In changing circumstances, good is not always good enough.
What did these changing circumstances lead 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, the censorship, honest doctors who were threatened and punished, etc. etc. And all this after substantiated warnings were swept off the table, partly with the assistance of the media.
It wasn't just the media that collaborated. For the next post, I will keep a list of about 15 institutes/sectors that all had reason to agitate against the corona policy, because it interfered with the domains they managed. They are publicly funded institutions that failed to protect citizens from the government. That is what fundamental rights are about. And then there are still voices that want 'trust' back with the citizen, while it has gone wrong precisely because of misplaced trust.
After all, we are in the wrong positions with the wrong people, that happens in a lack of mistrust and without systemic control. They can go about their business because they feel relieved of any responsibility because of their position, as long as they keep each other's hands above each other's heads. 'Culpable homicide' is one thing, but death by recklessness ("we just keep on puncturing despite everything"), multiple manslaughter, and if it was done against our better judgment, perhaps serial or mass murder... It's no mean feat. For a legal list, see the declaration which was done in the UK by MP Andrew Bridgen.
It is certain that, on the basis of unverifiable calculations, healthy people have been sacrificed to save vulnerable people, Eline van den Broek made clear. She saw "no effect of vaccination on mortality". Other studies found that there was good protection against Covid mortality. If both findings are correct, that protection is therefore compensated by a different vaccination effect with other types of mortality, in other people.
In addition to the health effects, social and financial chaos has been caused, hatred has been sown, disinformation has been institutionalised – in short, there is a range of misdeeds that these decent people have been guilty of or complicit in by not standing up and speaking up "because it might discredit someone".
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 Committee of Inquiry, which will undoubtedly be dismissed as conspiracy theories by parties that are not part of it (I am thinking of D'66).
And further: measures by operation of law? Will our judges get off scot-free, our O.M...? Although enough injustice seems to have taken place, I have no idea to what extent that translates into criminal offences. This is partly about punishing people who have exhibited harmful behaviour. More important is the signal function for future dignitaries. Punitive measures will hopefully serve as a stimulus for (self-)reflection and (self-)correction among scientists and policymakers. 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.
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 , including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
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.