A lot of text this time and also even more activist than usual because the situation really demands it. This is going completely in the wrong direction. Also read the letter from Maurice de Hond, added at the bottom last minute.
Fortunately, more and more people are standing up who do have something to lose. That makes more of an impression than the disinterested independent scientists who are dismissed as 'the best helmsmen are ashore' and 'they have an easy talk'. Of course, it's the other way around: it is precisely the uninhibited exchange of ideas that makes scientific progress, not the circling around in accepted mantras in which you have grown, with which you have shaped your career and from which you ultimately pay your mortgage. Exclusion is lurking if you are not careful – and apart from that, you are not so free in your thinking. Completely understandable.
Fortunately, we are now hearing more and more often from 'respectable' quarters that the vaccines are not the only way out, that childhood vaccination causes damage (I am a bit more outspoken about that myself, but they remain neat of course) and that the dichotomy, the vaccination compulsion, the control fetishism are really totalitarian elements that do not belong in our country and cause unprecedented social damage. Not to mention the economic damage caused by other irrational measures that have hardly any positive or even negative effects on public health.
Even dependent scientists are now sounding the alarm
If even leaders from the pharmaceutical industry let their conscience speak, then something is really going on. The time was not yet ripe when alarm bells were sounded by medical-pharmacological toppers such as Geert Vandenbossche, Michel Yeadon, Martin Kuldorff, Dr. Scott Atlas, Professor Sunetra Gupta, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Pierre Capel, Wolfgang Wodarg, Knut Wittkowski, Jona Walk and many many others, also united in groups and movements with a total of thousands of doctors and health workers.
Then I leave out the 'externals' such as Maurice de Hond and an army of physicists, statisticians, psychologists, communication scientists and what not. They can only be seen and heard on channels such as blckbx.tv, the New World, Weltschmerz, the Blue Tiger etc. Channels that often operate without a 'fact-checking' editorial formula, which in turn has undesirable consequences for their reputation. In any case: the scientists are called 'critical' because they are trying to initiate a very normal science-based discussion and the appropriate channels for this are tightly sealed, legally sealed by Ferd Grapperhaus.
The fact that these scientists are called 'critical' is already a sign on the wall. Especially because 'critical' has acquired a negative connotation; That is unheard of in science. Falsification is pre-eminently a valued method and that is done by formulating critical questions. Stakeholders are not keen on that. Every much-needed independent voice was sawn off at the ankles by the virtuous brigade of so-called fact-checkers, that's right/Stichting Skepsis, broadcasters and other neat docile media, traditionally loyal to the government. They were assisted by scientists within the narrative bubble who far too often do not keep their literature up to date.
For example, yesterday Heleen Dupuis was on Radio 1. Leading ethicist in the medical field, who was a member of the Senate for the VVD for sixteen years. Professor in Leiden, and also chairman of the Ethics Advisory Board of Sanquin and vice-chairman of the Medical Ethics Committee of the Leiden University Medical Center. She was simply unaware of recent developments. But very pronounced that unvaccinated people "take the vaccinated hostage". Really, ethics!? And that is the type of scientist our government advises. Maybe more about that another time.
Below are a few recent examples of medical-scientific professionals who stick their necks out: Didier Meulendijks (AstraZeneca Science Director), Rosanne Hertzberger (NRC columnist), Maurice van den Bosch (CEO OLVG hospital Amsterdam).
At the bottom is another penetrating email that 'outsider' Maurice de Hond sent an hour ago to his private mailing list of contacts from politics and media. The shivers ran down my spine.
AstraZeneca Science Director Didier Meulendijks
Hopefully, there is now fertile ground for what Didier Meulendijks, Scientist Director AstraZeneca has to say. It is a recent contribution. In case LinkedIn removes it, below is the full text.
Didier Meulendijks – Scientist Director, Global Development – Oncology – at AstraZeneca
Nov. 13, 2021
I see more and more LinkedIn posts from medical-scientific professionals who – each in their own way – are concerned and speak out about the policy pursued with regard to the QR codes [1]. I agree with that.
The QR, and soon 2G society that is being set up, and with which people are excluded on a large scale on the basis of vaccination status, is not only morally reprehensible but also virtually impossible to substantiate scientifically.
The data show that the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines – although effective in reducing the risk of hospitalization – soon no longer have a relevant effect on the spread of the virus [3, 4, 5, 6]. This removes any justification for the proposed QR society in which people – including all children from the age of 12 – are forced to be vaccinated in order to participate in normal social life. Vaccinating children with the new vaccines has already been criticized on a regular basis [7], and I am not going to explain here what my opinion is about the benefit-risk balance for that group.
The rationale behind the 2G policy – based on TU Delft research – is described as that vaccinated people spread the virus more often than tested unvaccinated people (in the context of 3G policy), and that unvaccinated people should therefore be protected with 2G in order to reduce hospital admissions [8]. The world upside down.
The group of QR-free Dutch people consists largely of healthy young people (including children) whose risk of hospitalization is small, as well as a large number of people who have already experienced Covid-19 (but cannot show a positive test). Excluding these people from society on the basis of vaccination status is not ethically justifiable and leads to social and societal damage that is incalculable.
The policy pursued does not seem to stop or improve in the short term. The polarization that is talked about in the media and that is slowly seeping into society and the smaller social circle of people [2] distracts from important questions. For example, the question of how the (supposed) positive effects of policy with regard to QR codes outweigh general negative effects on public health, and what consideration has been made in this regard.
Unfortunately, it seems more and more that a tacit majority of the Netherlands ensures assumed approval of this policy, and that can become very harmful in the long run. Because of the unscientific nature of this policy and the social damage that I believe it causes, I think it is important to speak out. Instead of focusing on QR codes, let's focus on repairing the healthcare capacity that has been reduced in recent years [9, 10].
Maurice van den Bosch, Director of the OLVG Amsterdam
On LinkedIn, the OLVG CEO regularly shares studies that contradict the government narrative. He has also been kicked off LinkedIn once. His argument now focuses on refusing QR codes in healthcare. However, the arguments he puts forward do not only apply to healthcare. An important voice in the discourse.
For LinkedIn members: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6861311018363076608/
Rosanne Hertzberger, scientist, NRC columnist
Earlier, salonfähige TV experts disappeared from the media, such as the much sought-after TV doctor Felix van de Wissel, when it turned out that advancing scientific insight had definitively taken a different path than state propaganda. Now I wonder how Rosanne Hertzberger will fare, who until recently was often invited to the table in talk shows. She has 'woken up' according to sources such as ninefornews and dds. However, these sources regularly get carried away in their activism, hence a quote directly from the source:
"Dear thinkers, writers, scientists, lawyers, call me a wappie, but I will resist this. Vaccination is safe and protects well. But I am deeply concerned about this country, its governance and its intellectuals.
Rosanne Hertzberger on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ryhertzberger/status/1459443411740774401
And I made a mistake by not writing about it in more detail in NRC today (because I thought until the last moment that they wouldn't be so crazy after all)."
Rosanne has already shown that she is intelligently adapting her views based on growing knowledge. How will her column in the NRC fare now? That newspaper has been lying for a year in the propaganda polonaise with de Volkskrant, AD and you name them. Perhaps such a dissident column is a good excuse corner. After all, it is just opinion, an anti-war sticker on the propaganda tank. I wonder how long we can admire Rosanne's radiant face on TV. Or is the tide actually turning?
Hot off the press: a penetrating letter from Maurice de Hond to his private contacts from politics and the media
For 17 years I have been sending you an email with the latest poll almost every Sunday.
I won't do that today.
I was and am too affected, because apparently our national government intends to exclude part of the population from a large part of their possible activities outside the home through the 2G regulation.
And I have two main reasons for that:
One principled and one based on data analysis.
I got vaccinated in April/May, so for the activities I would like to do, the 2G regulation does not actually mean an obstacle for me compared to the activities I do now.
But in reality, it is. Because I know all too well what the exclusion of a certain part of the population means when being allowed to do certain activities based on the stories of my parents from the darkest page of our history. At a certain point, they were also no longer allowed to visit certain places where they often went. And what struck them the most was that those who were still allowed to visit these places, just kept doing so. Who apparently did nothing to get to places where their neighbors, fellow townsmen, compatriots were no longer allowed to go.
If the 2G regulation is introduced, that feeling I have heard from my parents will take into account in my own decision whether I want to enter somewhere at all where the 2G regulation applies. Because in my mind I will see the people standing outside, who are no longer allowed to enter.
But apart from the point of principle, the 2G regulation will achieve exactly the opposite of what is claimed.
Because – unfortunately – what is apparently presented to the national government – with regard to the vaccination rate of patients admitted to hospitals, is irrelevant compared to the current situation. That vaccination ensures that people is 17 times less likely to be in hospital as Hugo de Jonge said in his press conference, is the situation as it was on average between July and October 20, but ignores that the situation is now very different than in July. And especially that among the elderly, who mainly come to hospitals, the protection of the virus against hospital admissions has decreased sharply over time. That factor of 17 for the average has now dropped to a figure not far from 2 in the group over 70. [and it is precisely that group that causes the influx that the healthcare cannot handle, AT]
Due to the high incidence, the Corona access pass is now a driver of infections. Because more and more vaccinated people can infect others, but also that – the elderly among those who are present in a 3G or 2G place, DO have a significantly greater chance of getting into the hospital than that number 17 from Hugo de Jonge seems to indicate.
In those 17 years I have sent an email almost every week with information, which I assumed you were interested in and might look at.
But I ask, no I beg, read this article I wrote in which I elaborated on the numerical misconception surrounding the Corona Access Pass. https://mdhnd.nl/hugo
Even if you do not feel addressed by the fundamental considerations regarding the decision of the 2G regulation, I hope that you will understand on the basis of the data analysis that it will not work yet and will actually cause an increase in hospital admissions. Because of both the false security and the actual danger that those present will infect each other and people will end up in hospitals.
And if you don't believe me, listen to Marcel Levi, last week in the RD.
Finally, in the past year and a half, I have also been in contact with people with certain health situations, which prevented them from being vaccinated. I advised them on how to live as safely as possible. Realize what the 2G regulation means for those people. I literally received an email from one of those people, who indicated that she would rather commit suicide than be completely locked up in her house.
I recently read a statement by someone who indicated: What exactly do fundamental rights mean if in a time of crisis those fundamental rights no longer apply?
I sincerely hope that whether you are active in politics or in the media (because those are the people who are on my mailing list), you will take a good look in the mirror and ask yourself whether you want to cooperate directly or indirectly as a measure that on the one hand crosses a line on principle and on the other hand is also counterproductive.
Wishing you a lot of wisdom
Maurice de Hond
Needless to say, a bit of a double whammy because I had just inserted Maurice's letter:
2G = double disturbed
That any rationale is missing in the OMT and in policy, does that need to be argued? Just a little longer:
With 2G you exclude the people who are not infectious, they have tested negative. You tell the rest, especially vaccinated people, that they are safe (and well-behaved) and bring them together as a reward. This is done in rooms that do not have ventilation requirements, other than the outdated building code. How could that ever go wrong...? Who comes up with this?
There are few measures that drive the infections harder than these.
De Jonge argues with his mosquito sense: "Those unvaccinated people must be protected because they may not get sick from it themselves, but they do pass the virus on to others who do get sick from it." Hugo, vaccinated people do that too! How else can they infect the unvaccinated? (Doesn't such a person hear himself raving!?)
It is reminiscent of Dancing with the Janssen, when young unsuspecting vaccinated people were directed in droves of stuffy spaces, on condition of a genetic injection, to dance opposite each other. Being in contaminated air for hours; No immune system can compete with that.
In some places - it was summer so few infected people - this went wrong in one weekend. Can you imagine what happens if this is decreed for the longer term? In the middle of winter, of course. And if they discover that their ideas are counterproductive again, they will first waste time tracking down forged QR passes, tightening enforcement at the door, deploying more BOAs, face masks also for vaccinated people, even more exclusions, etc. etc.
Everything is being tinkered with, but the basic concept really needs to be overhauled. Aerosols, protection of the elderly, restoration of care capacity (I don't call it 'expansion') those are the key words. Back to the drawing board with that.
