Cyril Rosman, Investigative journalist van het AD schreef een artikel waarin -hou je vast- het bestaan van de oversterfte wordt erkend! Zowaar! In het AD! Die oversterfte wordt natuurlijk wel onmiddellijk weggebagatelliseerd door experts. Dat is immerd de fatsoenlijke journalistieke aanpak: hoor en wederhoor. Zo ging het bij de talkshows ook: "Klopt dat, meneer Osterhaus?"1Ab Osterhaus is spokesperson for the vaccine trade
Dus dank AD, voor het eropuit sturen van deze reporter en het plaatsen van het verslag, zelfs in de gedrukte versie van de krant. Om het volgende keer nóg beter te doen, behandel ik hieronder enkele aandachtspunten. Deze onderzoeksjournalistieke vrucht mag dan de toets van 'journalistiek' doorstaan; het onderzoeksaspect behoeft op enkele punten wat aanvulling. Virusvaria to the rescue!
The review below only discusses some points for improvement regarding the rebuttal. With apologies to the four injection victims who also shared their experiences live on the Tuschinski stage: you are not included. Fortunately, you were mentioned in the AD article. That was very positive, as were some literal quotes (Flavio, Maurice, Wybren) that made it into the newspaper. So let me start by saying that I am pleased with the efforts of Cyril Rosman and the courage of the AD. A few more of these articles and I'll subscribe again.
The points of interest
The mentioned article2Article in AD bespreekt een filmpremière in Tuschinski. Het gaat om een docu rond injectieschade en oversterfte, gemaakt door Frank de Rooy: 'De Stilte Schreeuwt'. Na een inleidende korte sfeertekening van het wappie- en querulantengehalte van het publiek, schrijft Cyril:
"De discussie over oversterfte in Nederland is dan ook al een tijd ernstig gepolariseerd en leidt soms tot online heksenjachten."
Zo wordt de AD-lezer zwakjes bijgelicht over een deel van de waarheid. Het is immers niet "soms" maar "vaak" en ten tweede vinden die heksenjachten niet alleen online plaats. Ook in de fysieke wereld zien we heksenjachten op mensen die het oversterfte-narratief ter discussie stellen. De rol van de inquisitie wordt vervuld door bijvoorbeeld het IGJ en het OM. Mensen zijn hun baan kwijtgeraakt.3Article: The fate of Covid dissidents Dat gebeurt vooral waar het overheidsbeleid in beeld komt - en daar horen de vaccinpromotie tours natuurlijk bij. Maar de AD-lezer hoeft misschien niet álles te weten, en zeker niet dat die heksenjachten worden gelegitimeerd door de grote media zelf.
Then - a little something - Cyril compares the current excess mortality with what CBS predicted in 2017. CBS makes a forecast every year. It is unclear why the 2017 one was singled out. It seems more logical to take the most recent forecast pre-2020, which is 2019 (as Maurice de Hond did in our article on maurice.nl4Article The 10,000 hidden deaths by CBS). In this case it doesn't matter much numerically, as we'll see. Or it's just a mistake: 2017 instead of 2019. Nothing human is foreign to a journalist.
The Oracle himself!
Before we look at the CBS forecasts themselves, let's first look at the oracle of the institute for numerical confirmation of state propaganda, which is presented as the main figure in the rebuttal: Ruben van Gaalen, the king of white lies5Article from 2022: Panic at CBS leads to lies for good. Hij begint al met het mijden van de centrale term "oversterfte". Er zijn immers verschillende methodes om oversterfte te meten, dat kan op basis van verschillende aannames en dat is een penibel onderwerp, zoals ik in een volgend artikel uiteen zal zetten met voorbeelden van CBS-grafieken. Van Gaalen verplaatst het onderwerp onmiddellijk een stukje, richting 'Levensverwachting'. Hij loopt met zijn 'levensverwachting' met een nog wijdere boog dan voorheen om de olifant in de kamer heen. Maar OK: levensverwachting kan ook als beginpunt dienen van een goed gesprek.
He says, paraphrased: "Levensverwachting is een gecorrigeerde maat voor sterfte die tijdens de pandemie daalde en sindsdien herstelt, maar in Nederland -vooral bij vrouwen- achterblijft bij eerdere verwachtingen, en daarom zorgvuldige analyse vereist over een langere periode."6Recovery in life expectancy is lagging behind
He then suggests possible candidates for that careful analysis deferred care and long covid. In any case, that is not careful. It won't work out that way. No calculations have ever been shown showing that these are plausible causes, on the contrary: they can only make a small contribution to unexplained mortality7Article Deferred care and excess mortality? and long Covid cannot even be clearly distinguished from post-vaccination syndromes8Article Precarious tipping point: the Purpura study on long Covid and post-vaccination syndrome 9Article Post-Covid: What disease are we talking about?.
Then follows a remarkable Van Gaalentje (or is it a journalistic concoction) that I will copy exactly below because the summary would make you think that I am quoting falsely. This is really the literal quote:
"En ja, er zijn onderzoeken die laten zien dat er sprake is van bijwerkingen van vaccinaties die incidenteel tot de dood hebben geleid, maar daarvan staat nog niet vast of er een direct causaal verband is."
My abbreviated paraphrase:
Scientific research shows without causal link that something has repeatedly led to a certain outcome.
CBS spokesperson according to Algemeen Dagblad
Het komt niet bij de AD-onderzoeksjournalist op (of hij stelt prijs op zijn baan) om door te vragen hoe A tot B kan leiden in een wetenschappelijk onderzoek, zonder dat causaal verband is aangetoond. Zit het in het woordje 'direct causaal'? Een causale keten is immers ook causaal, al zijn het begin en het eindpunt indirect verbonden, via bloedpropjes bijvoorbeeld.
The next betise: "Het is ook niet dusdanig grootschalig dat die tot oversterfte hebben geleid." How does Van Gaalen know that? Isn't there excess mortality? Yes, obviously. He cannot know this based on data. In that case, they would have been released long ago on Open Data, or at least to independent academics.
That's enough, you would think. But no.
Van Gaalen's subsequent argument has already been debunked in several ways. He says:
"If vaccination had a weakening effect on the population, you would expect a comparable stagnation in those countries [with a higher vaccination rate]. We do not see that pattern."
- Firstly, this assumes identical products in different sales areas. This was not the case: different brands, batch variability, perhaps different transport and storage methods. (Not to mention demographic differences). In order to be able to make these types of comparisons afterwards, strict checks on product consistency should have been carried out. Didn't happen. And the final product should have been tested and approved in advance, not the prototype, as was done now10Final product never investigated.
- Sweden and Belgium are presented as countries with a higher vaccination rate than the Netherlands and less stagnation in the recovery. Here correlation is suddenly introduced as a causal argument. This is only allowed in favor of vaccines, otherwise the argument is invalid. Couldn't Van Gaalen even be held accountable for that? By the media, for example?
- De administratieve kwaliteit speelt hier mogelijk ook parten. AI's hadden grote moeite om exacte percentages te vinden.
- Dat zulke minieme verschillen zich überhaupt zouden moeten weerspiegelen in een goed te onderscheiden 'herstelduur' is een volstrekt uit de lucht gegrepen hypothese. Weer zo'n radeloze paniekgreep van Prof. Dr. van Gaalen, die er op basis van zijn titel keer op keer mee wegkomt.
Vaccination rates
| Country (>12 years) | Grok | ChatGPT | alter.systems | Claude.ai |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇳🇱 Netherlands | ~80,4 % | ~84–86% | ~84% – 86% | ~82% |
| 🇧🇪 Belgium | ~85,2 % | ~85–87% | ~88% – 90% | ~88-90% |
| 🇸🇪 Sweden | ~83,7 % | ~87.1% | ~85% – 87% | ~80–83% |
Hide away
Van Gaalen of CBS strongly contradicts the 'covering up' that De Hond writes about: "The fact is that we have continuously reported that the recovery in life expectancy has started since 2022, but that this has been slower than expected."
"Continu bericht...!?" Kom op zeg, feitenverdraaier. Tijd om de CBS-prognoses ter hand te nemen. Onderstaand zien we het getalsmatige gezwalk van CBS.
De bolletjes geven het jaar van de prognose aan, op de hoogte van de geobserveerde sterfte van dat jaar. Op de publicatiedatum van elke prognose was dat jaar nog niet voltooid - maar een echte prognose zou het ook niet zijn geweest.
A thin connecting line leads to the first year of the forecast. The thicker line is therefore the actual CBS forecast, of which only the first years are shown.
In 2020 (dark purple), CBS was clearly surprised by Covid and expected a rapid decline, just like after the Spanish Flu, according to van Gaalen until about 202311See it Spanish Flu article. In 2021 (donkergroen) was het nog steeds niet voorbij maar CBS verwachtte voor het volgend jaar een nog iets snellere normalisatie, zelfs met een ondersterfte in het jaar daarna, als we het vergelijken met 2010-2019. 2022 idem dito, nog meer ondersterfte (logisch ook). Het dikke lijntje wordt weliswaar hoger ingezet voor 2023 maar daarna meteen weer die forse daling, tot onder de 'verwachtingsband'.
Only in 2023 (orange) will a still increased mortality be expected for the following year, which will approximately return to the old expectation curve after 2 to 3 years. In 2024, the decline will only become a reality after approximately 5 years. In 2025, an increased mortality is expected for 2026 and beyond. Just like with the Spanish Flu, according to van Gaalen after 202312See it Spanish Flu article.
De gele band kunnen we ook minder krom intekenen maar dan bungelen die '20-'21-'22 lijnen wel erg onderaan. Verwachte ondersterfte? Daar kwam helemaal niets van terecht, terwijl er toch veel ouderen waren overleden. Wie is daar dan voor in de plaats gekomen?
OMT'er Voss
Prof. Dr. Voss, renowned trend watcher and mass psychologist, has a shot at the Gotspe Of The Year: “People have suffered during the corona pandemic, also because of the restrictions imposed on them. And they are now coming to terms with that. They want to be proven right, it is a kind of religious belief.”
Met gemeend respect voor Voss, dat hij bereid was om de vaccins te verdedigen op basis van niets meer dan een overtuiging en enkele kreten. Wat is er met je aan de hand als je alarmsignalen van harde data wil smoren met de slogan dat 'vaccins werken'. Dat ze 'meer goed dan slecht doen'. Dat zijn nu juist de geloofsovertuigingen die worden aangevallen door de sterftecijfers en de injectieschade.
Het populatiebreed -en wereldwijd- inspuiten van mensen kent natuurlijk andere normen dan 'meer goed dan slecht doen'. Dat zou wat worden zeg. Maar het staat wel weer als een dikke quote in de krant.
But it is very nice that Prof. Dr. In retrospect, Voss sympathizes with the misery endured by the OMT.
#covid #toobigtofail
Footnotes
- 1Ab Osterhaus is spokesperson for the vaccine trade
- 2
- 3Article: The fate of Covid dissidents
- 4Article The 10,000 hidden deaths by CBS
- 5Article from 2022: Panic at CBS leads to lies for good
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10Final product never investigated
- 11See it Spanish Flu article
- 12See it Spanish Flu article
It's a shame that you strip down that forecast graph so much to fit your own story into it.
Add a few more years, and show all the data, and do not cut it off after 4 to 5 years.
Then there is only 1 conclusion, and that is that CBS has been wrong for years. (My opinion is to substantiate the changes in the pension system with data, but that is another discussion)
If you now remove that yellow band of yours and put in the 2008 line, then there will be no more 'excess mortality'.
Anyway, I understand that that doesn't fit the message.
https://x.com/i/status/2045804517271240880
It is not a matter of 'not fitting'. I looked at the reliability of forecasts after 20 years. It is very low. In general, the more recent, the more accurate.
I believe that old forecasts can be found which mean that there would now be no excess mortality. That lacks evidentiary value because of its unreliability. It therefore added little and made the graph confusing.
Your graph, Anton, is a lot less clear than Bonne's graph because you look at the accuracy of (forecasts of) mortality per capita and Bonne looks at accuracy of (forecasts of) absolute mortality. Because CBS produces forecasts for both quantities. Your analysis can therefore include the numerator, the denominator, or both parts of the fraction.
N.B. CBS also sometimes misses the mark considerably when predicting the size of the population. For example, at the end of 2013 they predicted that the size of the NL population would remain clearly below 18 million in the period up to 2060!! A limit that we already passed as of January 1, 2024. ...Population forecasts in particular go wrong when there are large unexpected migration flows, such as in 2022 and 2023 (Ukraine war).
By the way, I find the 'good performance' of the forecast line from 2008 at Bonne suspicious. That line goes exactly through the achievements of 2015-2019. But that is a period with an abnormally high average flu mortality (approx. 5K-7K deaths higher than the average in 1999-2014) and (especially for that reason) a period that has an absolute mortality rate that is on average 11K higher than the average total mortality rate. I.e. from an average of approximately 139K in 1995-2014 it will go to approximately 150K on average in 2015-2019. So this was in fact already a period of 'small or flu excess mortality'. How is it possible that this forecast line from 2008 has such a steep slope that it precisely predicts the mortality rates in a period of very high flu excess mortality in 2015-2019? So that is a wrong line or just a coincidence.
P.S. Also read the heading about mortality during the flu entry from Wikipedia about the abnormally high mortality in 2015-2019.
When interpreting mortality figures, it is necessary to take demography into account. A baby boom that should not be underestimated has been putting pressure on mortality figures for years. Roughly between 1945 and 1970 the birth rate increased. This caused all kinds of problems with unemployment (losing jobs), etc.
The result of the NL demography was that it suppressed the mortality figures for a long time. The baby boomer group was mainly young, and young people die relatively infrequently. This group is slowly moving towards the (I always call it) dying age. In 2010, the first boomers turned 65, and in 2025 the first boomers turned 80. This turns a downward trend into an increasing trend (based on absolute mortality, but also per 100k)
And believe me, those mortality peaks in 2015-2019 were really not very high. Now that we are getting more and more 80+, the peaks will also become higher.
I see this differently: demographic factors are certainly important for explaining population mortality, but they are often secondary to other factors, such as innovation in healthcare and technology, the development of the health of the population and the policy pursued. You can clearly see this in the long-term time series (coincidentally seen yesterday when reading the article in the 'Spanish Flu' discussion), but also in more recent data.
Early 20th century
Although the size of the population almost doubled and the number of people over 65 increased almost 'astronomically', the level of mortality in the Netherlands did not return to the (high) level of the early twentieth century until the mid-1950s. Apart from the Spanish flu and a few WWII years.
Early 21st century
We also see this in the recent past: in the period 1995-2014, mortality rates initially fell slightly and then returned to the approximately 140K level at the end of the 20th century. Nevertheless, the size of the population and the aging population increased significantly in 1995-2014 (with more than 1.4 million people and a 4.2% increase in the share of people over 65 in the total population).
Conclusion: the primary drivers of the development of population mortality are not necessarily demographic factors. The effects of demography can be offset by other factors, and in fact have been in some recent and older history.
In the long term, hygiene, water quality, heating, etc. etc. are also important. These, like population growth and aging, are not incidents that cause death rates to jump up and/or down every year.
In the long term, hygiene, water quality, heating, etc. etc. are also important. These, like population growth and aging, are not incidents that cause death rates to jump up and/or down every year.
Sudden trend breaks must be traced back to, for example, things you mention: “innovation in healthcare and technology, the development of the health of the population and the policy pursued”. Or wars, epidemics etc.
Hi Anton,
I also didn't think the commentary from Van Gaalen and Voss was very strong. But neither is your spin on “the-vaccines-did-it.” I continue to ask the five (serious) questions I formulated earlier, https://mkeulemans.substack.com/p/ik-schreef-een-brief-aan-virusvaria
The most important:
WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE MANY THOROUGH, PEER REVIEWED, PUBLISHED, HUGE STUDIES THAT DETERMINE THAT THERE IS NO VERY LARGE SCALE VACCINE RELATED DEATH OR DISEASE BURDEN, DOING WRONG?
In my substack I mention three of those studies, which in any case convince me that the health damage at population level cannot be related to vaccinations. You would then see a different pattern: damage coinciding with the vaccination campaigns, damage in countries that vaccinate more, damage correlating with vaccinated groups, more damage among young people.
And: that. see. you. not.
No one denies that there is vaccine damage. I even believe that we were the first regular medium to write about such a case at the beginning of 2021:
https://www.volkskrant.nl/cs-b9b9ac05/
No one denies that there are still patients who have suffered damage due to vaccination, and that they are misunderstood and completely wrongly put in the wappie corner. I speak to them with some regularity. Literally sat on the terrace on Friday with such a patient.
No one denies that mortality is higher than expected before the pandemic and that it is slowly recovering. Another interesting preprint: https://t.co/qNHL9pWQWP
But what you keep hiding away is that there have long been explanations for that higher mortality. I've written about it often.
a) Immune deficit: the recurring 'normal' infectious diseases hit harder.
b) The corona measures: for example, dementia patients have deteriorated more rapidly because their regularity was disrupted.
c) Postponed treatments: all kinds of knee, hip and cataract operations were suspended. And what did you see next? More deaths from falls.
And the MOST IMPORTANT: d) lifestyle.
Since corona we have started to exercise less (hello, working from home), we have gained weight, we have started drinking and snacking more (I have really gained weight) and there is less social contact (RIVM).
ALL factors that you just know reduce life expectancy (slightly).
And they immediately explain the most striking observation in my opinion: that the increased mortality correlates with POVERTY, both between countries (See, among others, John Ioannidis) and within countries.
It is all included in those studies that the counter-movement rightly claims would not take place.
It would really help if you took this seriously. Based on what we KNOW, instead of continuing to reason: 'the vaccines are bad, period.'
“delayed treatments”: hip and cataract operations, fatal falls...ha yes! in people in their twenties and thirties ?? It will!
Dear Maarten, I hope that Anton will also respond, but here is my response to it.
I don't know where on Virusvaria you saw a turn to "the vaccines did it", what I mainly see here is criticism of attempts to dismiss vaccines as a possible factor in the discussion of excess mortality, as well as arguments that vaccines most likely do play a role.
A serious approach is to estimate all suggested possible causes, add them up and then check whether a simulation closely approximates reality. And whether another reasonable estimate comes closer to the actual one. Then of course a possible factor should not be dismissed.
You suggest a few possible causes that are new to me, thank you. But you seem to know what the root cause was. Do you really know more than everyone else? Do you know of a good article that has made a credible estimate of numbers of excess deaths due to such possible causes, including vaccines?
You further write, "damage coinciding with the vaccination campaigns, damage in countries that vaccinate more, damage correlating with vaccinated groups, more damage among young people [...] that you don't see."
– short-term excess mortality coinciding with vaccination campaigns: there have certainly been publications about this in various countries, I also saw it myself at the time (modelled) in Switzerland. So “you can't see that” is literally wrong as far as I'm concerned.
– damage in countries that vaccinate more: I saw good publications about this at the time, looking at the change over time, including one or two that compared two areas in the same country.
– damage correlating with vaccinated groups, which, according to pro- and anti-vaxers, proved to be very difficult with non-random selection due to, among other things, HVE. During the clinical studies of some Covid vaccines, many health complaints were registered in the vaccinated groups.
– more damage to young people, was that claimed on Virusvaria? Why? It is true that damage can be more noticeable in young people than in older people, perhaps that is what you are referring to.
This quickly slipped my mind and finding it all again will take a lot of time. I've now subscribed to your Substack and may comment there in more detail soon, as most of it is beyond the scope of this article. But who knows, it's possible that the discussion you're starting here could lead to an extensive overview article on one of these blogs.
Pulmonary infectious disease has always existed, so only people who got COVID in 2020 could suffer from this (unfortunately also because first-line treatments were banned and people elsewhere completely missed the mark with "treatments"). If those, allegedly great "vaccines" worked so well, why all those "long COVID sufferers" AFTER 2020, so from 2021, the year that everyone participated in the experiment and still every autumn? Plus the excess mortality and much more misery. In my family a young person with a form of cancer that did not occur BEFORE 2020 and with which they have now filled an entire department in a hospital and where fortunately there is progressive insight to find the right treatments, but where no one is allowed to ask the question and/or give the answer why this terrible disease arose in these young people after 2021... the Silence Screams!
And yes, here we go again…
-Long Covid has been a problem FROM THE FIRST WAVE, not just from 2021.
-A form of cancer that “did not occur before 2020”? I don't believe you. Will you email me the details? If so: front page news. If not: you're lying.
-“An entire department of the hospital filled”? Idem. I don't believe you. Will you email me which one?
Hopital? Then we can check it. If so, front page news. And if not: you're lying.
Whatever “long covid”…..”long vacc” you can't continue to deny it!
findings in the US: pancreatic cancer, bone cancer in YOUNG (vaxed) people...previously did NOT occur in that age category.
I think I was the first in the mainstream media to write about long-vacc:
https://www.volkskrant.nl/cs-bec0f2c8/
Bone cancer under the age of 45: 74 cases in 2020, 154 cases in 2024, 53 cases in 2025 (NL cancer registry)
Pancreas under the age of 45: 25 cases in 2020, 29 cases in 2024 (ditto)
*Sorry, I'm wrong: bone cancer under the age of 45 was 53 cases in 2024.
Second.
https://www.nporadio1.nl/nieuws/onderzoek/0dc13818-5023-4827-923b-92761c98196b/biomedisch-wetenschapper-en-journalist-jop-de-vrieze-ging-op-onderzoek-uit-naar-de-bijwerkingen-van-coronavaccins
Maarten, I understand your strong reaction because it is also terrifying that you could be the next victim of the experiment with, among other things, Mrna plus pollution and other toxic substances. An entire hospital department with young people is still a small group, so it is too privacy-sensitive to email you about. These young people and/or their loved ones will probably contact authorities in the (necessarily adapted) future to have their questions answered. WE haven't gained weight, you apparently gained weight by drinking and snacking more. Lack of self-control, you could have walked more. You can now exercise, because these many additional heart conditions and arteriosclerosis only occur in sports enthusiasts. Since 2021, it was recently reported on the front pages of all online MSM newspapers. Again: Why do people vaccinated against Covid still get long Covid after Covid in the years after 2020 if those shots are so effective against becoming seriously ill and/or dying from Covid? Only unvaccinated people should be eligible for long Covid, right? I know the answer and I can't wait for it to be front page news. Today someone spontaneously came to tell me that he had heard/read about the film Silence Screams and now also has doubts about it.
No 'c', I don't react strongly because I would be worried, but because I don't like people who spread lies to scare other people.
What are you exposing yourself to here? So there is a whole hospital department full of young people with cancers that are new to medical science, but you prefer not to say it to respect their privacy. No, of course. 😀
Not completely new, but the age at which this previously very rare form was acquired is new and it has become less rare. Unfortunately, the diagnosis also takes longer because people did not look for it in this age group.
“Preaching lies to scare other people” where and when were we inundated with this and even our freedom was taken away from us and who participated in that? Start 2020! And today I maintain that those lies are the truth... Fortunately, I can look at myself in every mirror with a clear conscience and I try every day to contribute to uncovering the bottom stone for the many victims of this large-scale experiment (even on pregnant women). Maarten, maybe you could also get involved in that? And yes, you have written critical pieces and respond here to virusvaria, but burning down a documentary without being seen and even a call to cancel a cinema subscription do not, in my opinion, really concern yourself with victims... My question about long-covid in vaccinated people has not yet been answered, so I see an article about it on x or a tip that it is in the Volkskrant, thanks in advance!
Maarten, these are the usual blanks shot from the hip. If you really looked into it, without repeating someone else, you would know that these were not good arguments.
You assume that this excess mortality is mainly among the 80+. And that is a wrong assumption.
We see a trend break especially among younger ages in 2021, to be precise in the summer of 2021.
Where the summer mortality for corona shows an almost strict trend. And now there is this trend break. Among 50-65 year olds.
https://x.com/i/status/2041910400904482971
50-65 year olds……
Death from a virus infection? Demented? Died after accidental fall. This is an age where, at most, someone develops dementia accidentally, where it is not decided after an accidental fall not to treat the hip fracture anymore, or where someone with a virus infection is left to die at home.
And 65 people don't often die from gaining a few extra pounds for 2 years. Certainly not spontaneously in the summer of 2021.
Those are nonsense answers, and you know that very well.
Name me is one good cause that makes it logical, or somewhat close, that mortality increases by 10% in the summer of 2021 compared to, for example, 2020, when there was also corona, we also emerged from a lockdown, and there was also deferred care.
I am also of the opinion that all kinds of causes can be listed for possible higher mortality than expected. But explaining away 'everything' with a few blanks...
Now look at that mortality really carefully. Total population, subgroups, any 5-year cohorts.
The Netherlands is more than an aging population, where you can attribute all kinds of fancy causes to elderly people with dementia. So out of place.
Completely agree Bonne. But actually many more alarm bells should be going off.
Mortality has shifted to under 80+. There is no longer any dry wood or short-term mortality. This is structural. And Maarten, as a self-proclaimed expert, should immediately see this. I hope this clarifies my previous comments. These are empty arguments only intended to refute causality. That's all it is. I've never seen any intention of really exploring this. And I am very curious to which studies Gaalen is referring because I do not know them in the Netherlands. Certainly not at ZONmw.
Nice that you come up with your own calculations - full of errors; to mention something, there were certainly covid waves in the summer - but now explain what exactly the neat academic studies that conclude that excess mortality is indeed a function of age are doing wrong?
Such as:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-67981-1
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.02.25.26347112v1.full.pdf
By the way, you are making another mistake: an unhealthy lifestyle does not only translate into worse life outcomes for people over 80 - those people do not even live to be 80.
I am indeed quoting from my own 'calculations', and unfortunately there is no other way. The Netherlands is located in the northern hemisphere, and the usual economic boom occurs in the winter months. However, the separation of annual mortality is on January 1, and can cause a serious distortion. An early mortality peak ('flu wave') then adds to the previous year, and a (delayed) mortality wave to the following year. This can be quite distorting. The ultimate example is 2020. Wave 1 from March 2020, followed by a calm summer, and increasing mortality from September until December. And in January 2021, mortality dropped significantly.
That is why it is much cleaner to compare seasons, instead of years. Add to this that population sizes can differ, etc. It is most accurate to compare seasons on the basis of 100k.
This is exactly what I do. Winter mortality is then week 40 to 52 to 19. And the summer mortality (low economic situation) is week 20 to 39. To be honest, I don't see any paper making a distinction here, and I think that is a major shortcoming.
The mortality monitor at Euromomo has similar problems and is also based on the 2016-2019 baseline. This cannot be more negative for the Netherlands than using these years. I have also explained to Gijs van Loef that these are unfortunate data series from which I would not draw any conclusions myself.
https://x.com/i/status/1831727332949733541
About the Second Article. This is about 'life expectancy', a kind of derivative of mortality figures. Here you see, for example, that years with low mortality generate high life expectancy, and vice versa. In short, higher mortality rates indicate low mortality expectations. Here too, nothing new under the sun for the Netherlands, yes mortality seems to be increased, and therefore we see a lower life expectancy.
I already wrote something about it on Partly because we have a much more rapidly aging population compared to other countries.
https://x.com/i/status/2015816760075686295
https://x.com/i/status/1941172543832146010
In the Netherlands, women have been pushing against a limit for years that just won't budge. We still see slight improvement in men. But now for the avg. To extend life expectancy as a regression line is really a MEGA simplification that does not do justice to observations. And then drawing conclusions from that is really a bridge too far for me.
The most important thing in all these studies is the method used. How clean are the baseline calculations, and how are they extrapolated. That is partly why I criticize the 'standard mortality' calculated by Herman and Anton. The chosen method naturally generates a low mortality expectation. And this is mainly reflected in the older population. 80 years and older.
Norm Mortality expectation below 80 is quite accurate. The result is that I always take statements about the entire population with a grain of salt, but data from the younger population is often valid.
I also believe that there are all kinds of causes for 'excess mortality'. You cannot pin this down to one cause. What I am convinced of is that vaccination damage (read mortality) is more than a handful. In addition, if it is 'only' 1% of the total 'excess mortality', I would like to know this. If there were 'only' 100, I would still want to know the risk factors.
And with the current trend, this cause is heavily underexposed. And then you indeed get those model-based excess mortality excesses that have to prove that something is wrong. On the other hand, this also produces ad-hoc 'causes' that do not go anywhere. As I tried to explain to you. And I personally think this is a major shortcoming of the past period. All kinds of research may take place. But no research may be conducted into the adverse effects of vaccination. This is still too sacred.
Finally, about those corona waves in the summer. Viruses simply mutate and are 'not' tied to seasons. Enough changes have occurred in the 'summer' months. However, we see two patterns emerging here.
1. Mutations in the winter create a wave, which only 'exhausts' after a kind of herd immunity has developed.
2. Mutations that arise in the summer create a wave that burns out quite quickly because transmission in summer is lower compared to winter, and as soon as the conditions for transmission become more favorable again (September and later) you see such a wave flare up again.
We indeed saw Pattern 2 in the summer of 2021 with the rise of Delta. (Partly driven by crazy policy regarding QR codes and dancing with jansen) But the overall corona mortality among 50-65 year olds is so low that this cannot be the main cause for the sudden increase in summer 2021. And today we still see increased mortality. If corona was the main cause, that effect should have disappeared by now (on the one hand the widely praised vaccination, on the other hand because we hardly experienced a corona wave last winter).
And before I see the next ad-hoc cause looming. The reason why we suddenly observe all kinds of system diseases after a severe corona infection... is, in my opinion, cause and effect reversed. People with systemic diseases were more often affected by severe corona, instead of healthy people suddenly being affected by all kinds of systemic diseases due to corona. This is a major confounder in that study. I understand that in a population with severe corona, all kinds of other diseases are also found at increased rates. But again, this is cause and effect reversed.
I think I have now answered your next stream of causes. I hope that you can really provide a good explanation for the increased mortality in the summer of 2021 among 50-65 year olds.
Well no Bonne, sorry, but you haven't parried anything at all. I especially see you making your profession of faith: you really ignore everything. Such as the blindingly obvious observation that all serious studies into SAEs after vaccination do not find significant numbers of serious side effects.
Take the endlessly repeated mantra:
>no research may be conducted into adverse effects of vaccination.
Er, yes: that research has taken place (and is still taking place), on a large scale. We KNOW from this that Vaxzevria causes the thrombosis syndrome VITT via mimicry, we KNOW that mRNA vaccines cause myocarditis/pericarditis in very rare cases, we KNOW that there is such a thing as 'longvax' or whatever you want to call it and that mRNA vaccines cause an increased risk of menstrual disorders (not to be confused with damage to fertility, which again does not exist.)
All because of those investigations that you think are not 'allowed' to take place. These studies are simply there - it just does not reveal what many on this site would most like to hear, namely that the science was completely wrong and therefore the approach to corona was also a hoax.
I'm wondering, Bonne: have you ever tried to get your calculations submitted for peer review? Looking for collaboration with an academic partner? Because that is ultimately how scientific knowledge is created: in public debate between experts.
Shall we agree that without that peer review we will simply assume that the scientific literature (in the larger journals such as NEJM, JAMA, etc.) is leading?
I wonder if you are genuinely interested?
I make a whole plea why you should be careful with studies that use year-on-year mortality, and then you pick out one sentence to make your point.
I have tried to answer all your questions and give my views on them, and then you come back with such a question/answer?!
Then you want to agree on something about open debates and what is leading there, but you do not have the decency to enter into the 'debate' yourself about what was previously discussed.
I honestly don't know whether I am dealing with an interested person, or whether I am dealing with someone where my arguments make no difference. Because I don't have the energy for that anymore.
Good,
I had to think for a moment.
I think we have the same dilemma. Namely: what exactly is true here?
What we have in common is that we take the data as a starting point, that we want to check things, and that we do not simply believe statements. But the point is: if we don't just believe YOUR claims and want to verify them, how can we do that?
I have been in journalism for over thirty years now, and I can tell you that, without exaggeration, not a week goes by without us receiving do-it-yourself claims, from undoubtedly very well-intentioned people who are completely convinced that they are on to something very important.
Einstein made a calculation error in the General Theory of Relativity! The climate is not warming at all! The climate is warming, but not because of humans! There is a cure for cancer! 9/11 was an inside job, just look at Building 3!
And in recent years there has been an enormous excess mortality due to vaccines, HCQ works against Covid, the coronavirus comes from the lab, the mortality was only 0.23 percent, lockdowns did not work.
All quite convincing at first glance. Until I – which I do on a regular basis – submit such claims to third parties. Because I sometimes think: gosh, they'll only have one point, what's the deal?
Every now and then a 'Van Gaalentje' comes out, a poorly thought-out refutation. But it happens much more often that I simply point out very simple errors in the whole thing to the scientists I approach (NOT the 'television experts' by the way, I often consult the diligent researchers working behind the scenes who prefer to stay out of publicity).
Hence my question to you. Everything you show looks great. And mathematically it will be correct. But HOW CAN WE ENSURE THAT YOU ARE NOT MAKING SOME THINKING, REASONING ERRORS OR ASSUMPTION ERRORS?
You may well think that you are on to something that all 'normal' scientists have missed. That all doctors, researchers, statisticians, epidemiologists, demographers in the world are corrupt, blind or afraid for their jobs. That all the inspection bodies - the reference labs, the Larebs, the product inspections, the EMAs, the NVWAs - are not doing their work.
That you have discovered a unique truth.
But how can we rely on that?
Now you are condemned to echo your own point here in the marginality, nice and easy. And no, I am not an 'expert' in the sense that I am a biostatistician or an epidemiologist. No, a 'debate' with me is of no use. And no, I don't think it is my 'job' or 'duty' to test your findings or anything.
My role is to question presented realities – yes, including yours.
Anyway, very curious about your thoughts and your answer to my question.
Congratulations Bonne. When Maarten Keulemans is in danger of losing a scientific argument, he turns to belittling, as he just did to you. It tells volumes about Maarten Keulemans, not about you or your analyses.
Maarten, Building 7. “I often consult the diligent, behind-the-scenes researchers who prefer to stay out of publicity.” Are they allowed to do that? But I have to email the privacy of family and sources to you so you can put it on the front page? What are you exposing yourself to? By the way, at the beginning of my career in healthcare, I took an oath, among other things, that I may not share data about clients/patients and their loved ones. Even without an oath, always consult first (that's why I'm called c here). Different rules will apply to a journalist. And now back to work because in December 2020, your consulted experts shouted "There is a cure/vaccine against Covid, everyone has to take it twice (eight times now? I've lost count), you are doing it for someone else, etc." Serious COVID (or worse) and even contracted Long Covid AFTER multiple injections, excess mortality where now even the AD overwrites something and where a "van Gaalentje" comes out... (plenty to do because you also have that scaremongering about it climate in your portfolio). Merely diminishing the name of a professor who the people have had to listen to for years to see if he has a monopoly on wisdom is a very nasty way of diminishing major blunders. Indeed, a debate with someone who has no genuine interest is of no use to us.
Maarten,
I also had to think about this a little longer. Mainly about the reaction/thoughts. I could have written a whole argument, with paragraphs full of background and explanation, but I suspect that would be repeating steps and wasted energy.
I am electrically trained myself and am a bit higher up in the tree at a wind turbine manufacturer. I provide support with complex electrical technical faults and do a lot of data analysis as well as writing reports for internal or external use. I know better than anyone how much diplomacy is involved. One person does not want this conclusion, because the entire fleet would have to be checked for a defect, and another person does not want a conclusion based on mechanic error, because then the insurance premium would increase. I know better than anyone how such final reports are drawn up, and how, with many ifs and buts, a 'desired' cause is often discussed/written. The stakes are immense.
And you can fool anyone about the “independence of science”…. the stakes are enormous there too. I don't exactly call that corrupt or completely blind... although it sometimes seems like it. But such studies are often (too) complex and there are all kinds of 'confounders and biases' that make it too far-fetched for most mortals.
But above all, I prefer nuance. I am not making any statements as if there is 'excess mortality' of three MH17s per week. Or that all 'excess mortality' is (directly) related to vaccination. I know from experience that complex things often consist of sums of... In addition, I also know that small details are usually underexposed at first glance, but that later in the process they become a hot topic. The so-called gut feelings. You suspect something is wrong, but can't immediately put your finger on it.
Anyway, how should all those 'claims' be assessed? That really means delving deeper into the data yourself (investigative journalism)... and if you don't want to or can't do that or have whatever reason... then in any case don't come up with an ad-hoc 'cause' that doesn't make any sense. You regularly present yourself as an expert in this field.
I am the first to admit that a reasoning or fallacy has been made. Or whether a nuance needs to be made. (Although Twitter is not exactly the medium to discuss nuances in detail, as you are limited to maximum numbers of characters) I've just never heard them. There has never been anyone who could point out to me what was wrong. Now I also understand that there are few who feel the need to selflessly spend their valuable time digging through someone else's data and methods. But easy to detect errors, ……
I have done it a few times myself, and tried to point out others' way of thinking or hidden assumptions, or where there are nuances. Certain data points (such as: is a winter without a (severe) flu wave at the end of your data series a strong predictor for mortality in the winters that will follow) may or may not be counted 'fully'. And I like to read along with the real experts, and make sensational discoveries, and then try to take them with me.
I am not quick to claim that people or institutions are corrupt. I can tell them where I think nuances are needed. At VE, for example, you saw that the RIVM made a nuance by adding a note about HVE. But how much does this weigh, and for which target group? In my opinion, such a concept cannot be described at the bottom of the margins. But you must consciously include this in your reports.
I can be brief about that echoing. I haven't done that for a long time. Only when arguments are very crooked do I sometimes want to take my pen and write a response. But I have already come to terms with the fact that humanity is generally not interested in complex truth. And as long as it doesn't affect me personally, I believe it all.
Where I stand:
Lockdowns – my suspicion is that these work (very) moderately. The real problem, flooding ICs, I don't think there is a real solution for. In my opinion, the only thing you can do is protect the weaker ones excellently, and let the rest of the virus circulate.
Vaccination – theoretically a good means of protection. Practically difficult to investigate. In my opinion, this had an effect in the first few months of 2021. After that, I have difficulty assessing it. I suspect that the 3rd, 4th, 5th and ...th injection was mainly good for the manufacturers' wallets, and offered little additional protection. Luckily there was omicron. Otherwise I would have had a gloomy view.
Excess mortality – I don't see very much absolute excess mortality. Mainly misinterpretation of extrapolation at 80+. What is striking are the significant trend breaks around 2020/2021, mainly among the middle-aged. This does not result in large absolute excess mortality. But it is worthy of investigation.
HVE (Healthy vaccine effect) – I would like to see a solid write-up on this. How much does that count? I suspect not strongly at 50-min. But especially at 80+. What if we remove the people who were in hospice from the data and then calculate it again, for example?
I have experienced some deaths myself (as most of you have experienced the death of a loved one). Let me put it this way, about two weeks in advance, most of us know that the end is near. My father said: "No more polonaise on my body. Paracetamol okay, nothing else" (died before corona, by the way). Well, suppose it was his turn for his vaccination during that period. Then he would have died unvaccinated. How often does this occur in the 80+ population? Is it fair to simply contrast vaccinated/unvaccinated people and then draw the conclusion: “unvaccinated people die more often than vaccinated people. POINT!” While we know that unvaccinated people contain a (large) group that was on the verge of death and did not want polonaise anymore. You would at least want to see some quantification of HVE in that population. Is that marginal? 2-3% of the population or does that increase to >10%? And if the vaccination rate is 95%. How does that 2-3% or >10% compare to the vaccinated population? Isn't it logical that mortality is higher by a factor of 3 anyway (I'm just stating a number).
It's going to be a long story again...
But have I discovered something unique? I don't think so. Anyone who can download mortality figures and population sizes would draw the same conclusion. I am more amazed at the ease with which the numbers fabricated by CBS are regarded without any doubt as the truth, and then all kinds of truths are filtered out of them. Statistics Netherlands' forecasts have been too low for 15 years. The actual mortality is invariably higher. (with the exception of flu-free winters). Does CBS consistently expect flu-free winters in the future?
I cannot confirm it, but I suspect that CBS 'creates' these forecasts to support the new pension law with 'hard data'. And yes, that is a harsh accusation. I cannot imagine that an institute with decades of experience and data would draw up such a mediocre forecast. Of course they will hide behind the fact that corona clouds these figures. But I find that inexplicable. It therefore did not surprise me at all that CBS stopped making weekly forecasts at the time and transferred this to RIVM. And that the RIVM then uses a completely different model and, in other words, goes the other way.
Anyway, it goes too far into depth again, which is exactly what I wanted to avoid. But in my opinion that is the only solution. I do not have the reach of a newspaper, and if I were to create something scientific, it would probably not end up in top magazines such as Nature or Science, and it would probably be dismissed as 'the first study in an insignificant magazine'. We don't pay attention to that.
So I honestly wonder. Is there an opportunity for ordinary citizens to bring a 'unique truth' to light or have it tested? I have to respond to that in the negative, that possibility is very small.
If you see 20% of deaths coming and then do not vaccinate, you will already achieve a VE of 83% with a placebo. If you see 30% coming, then the Vaccination Effectiveness is 90%. I thought it was stunning.
See the HVE calculator.
Thanks Anton, I will look into that!
Bonne, I have tried in the past to calculate how many people did not take the vaccines because they were too sick. That starts at 65-70, where it is 0.1%. At 75-80 the 1% is exceeded, at 85-90 the 5% is exceeded and at 90+ I reach more than 10%.
Total number of persons between 45,000 and 50,000 persons. These are people who wanted to be vaccinated, but still died as a result of not being vaccinated in 2021, with a delay until the 1st quarter of 2022.
This clearly explains the overrepresentation of unvaccinated deaths at Nivel and UMC in the first weeks after vaccination.
To clarify: these are percentages of the entire age group. I'm talking about percentages of people who will die in the foreseeable future.
Fear and placebo
By taking the HVE into account, I think we are getting closer to a truth.
The above-mentioned placebo effect is assumed purely arithmetic.
In addition to this effect, there is also, I suspect, a biological effect.
Suppose that the fear campaigns brought over from the UK through the Imperial College in London by Ferguson (eagerly followed here by RIVM) have done their work here. Here in this country, the high tsunami images from the widely international expert Jacco (see below also by MK) have caused further fear (the actual data always ended up at the bottom curve or even below). I suspect that a much too high IFR has been entered in the models, but this is beside the point (RIVM in any case left a much too high value on its site for a long time).
In short, the fear among the population had been raised to extreme levels. This panic has probably also led to culpable negligent action among doctors (see Willem) (not in Germany, by the way. They are a bit more rational (see also my link below about analyzing data versus the Drosten fairy tale).
The consequence of this fear, in addition to hyperventilation complaints (which may also have been incorrectly diagnosed with low saturation values), is that the immune system of a large part of the population in combination with antisocial actions (lockdowns and social distancing) has suffered a huge blow, resulting in an increased risk of illness.
And now the other placebo effect of the vaccine is also coming into focus. By taking the vaccine one was protected. The fact that this was about 95% protection seemed convincing, but that it was about relative values was conveniently not mentioned (they can sell it, those pharmaceutical companies).
This is how it could happen that, contrary to what was known to experts: there is no herb/vaccine effective against respiratory infections, it suddenly did not seem to be the case. A fairy tale was born.
The fact that the vaccine caused Covid-like symptoms was not a problem. If you have the symptoms, then it is good, you will see that it works. Well.
If people took a PCR test due to a family/grandmother visit and then scored positive and the visit was skipped, they would have been just too late. That virus is incredibly contagious, isn't it? Fortunately, I had tested to be sure.
Due to the biological effect of the vaccine placebo: I have symptoms -> it works -> I am protected and can go to sleep again, the immune system calms down again and the number of hospital admissions decreases. See, MK would say the vaccine works, prevents hospital admissions. And he is right, it works, but not in the way that virologists and pharmaceutical companies want to sell us.
It is only a hypothetical explanation, but one that takes into account as much of the complex context as possible.
Shoot!
Thanks Hans. Have you ever written anything about that? Can I find that somewhere?
Maarten, you should take a look at Jan vd Zanden's graphs, which you can find here:
https://janvdzanden-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/jan_janvdzanden_onmicrosoft_com/IgBAOEGVVdeHTpz4RdljmeERAa4-r7CAczfzEQnMRTbWwPs?e=cKAKU1
Then take the five-year cohorts for men and women and look mainly at ages 30 and up. You can then clearly see that there are groups where excess mortality has increased in recent years, especially among younger groups, or has decreased, especially among the oldest groups. In a normal situation you would expect a decrease across the board, back to normal.
(Hope the link works)
The most important:
WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE MANY THOROUGH, PEER REVIEWED, PUBLISHED, HUGE STUDIES THAT DETERMINE THAT THERE IS NO VERY LARGE SCALE VACCINE RELATED DEATH OR DISEASE BURDEN, DOING WRONG?
They are not doing anything wrong, the researchers have to make do with the figures given to them.
These numbers are incorrect. Read the WOO documents, the data and monitoring required to conduct such studies are not recorded and described.
When requested, these are not available due to GDPR.
And I think the most striking conclusion of all the studies mentioned is that the population on which no intervention took place died more often.
These above facts are causing me to short circuit my brain.
Hello Maarten,
I had a wonderful weekend, family time.
Your response, together with your Substack, touches on all kinds of topics. It is a barrage of well-meaning arguments, straw men, and also quite a few repetitions of positions that have been refuted before. You could have found them yourself, but now I have to list them for you. Because providing links adds little, and I don't have hours every day to formulate thorough answers, it takes a little more time.
Harald is already making a move, I saw.
It will probably be a bit much for one comment, so for practical reasons I am thinking of an “Open letter to Maarten Keulemans”, in response to your “open letter to Virusvaria”, I will see about that, I think later this week.
In the meantime, can you please call Ruben van Gaalen to order? Because this is of course not possible.
Signal vs. Noise: Keulemans looks at the 'big pile' (population level), but ignores the thousands of individual signals in systems such as VAERS and EudraVigilance. The fact that these databases show an explosion of reports compared to all other vaccines over the past 30 years is itself a pattern that deserves further investigation, regardless of overall mortality rates.
Underreporting: Scientific literature (such as the Lazarus study) suggests that only 1% to 10% of actual adverse events end up in passive systems. Keulemans bases his conclusion on 'published studies', but if the data entry at the base is already incomplete, those studies are also colored.
The 10-year term and the mRNA “Black Box”:
Long term cannot be simulated: There is no substitute for time. No rolling review or financial injection can prove what a new genetic technology (mRNA) will do to the human immune system or cell structure in 5 or 10 years. The massive use of this technology without waiting for this period actually turns the world population into a test group.
Pharmaceutical interests: The studies Keulemans refers to are often (indirectly) financed or influenced by the manufacturers themselves. In the history of medicine, substances have often been declared safe (think of Softenon or Vioxx) that only appeared to cause serious damage after years of widespread use.
The shortcoming of the “Alternative Explanations”:
Selective blindness: It is striking that Keulemans accepts every conceivable factor (alcohol, working from home, less exercise) as an explanation for excess mortality, except for the most drastic medical intervention in history, which took place exactly in the same period.
Correlational weakness: If 'lifestyle' is the main cause, why do we see sudden heart problems in top athletes and very healthy young people who do not belong to the group with a poor lifestyle? By focusing everything on poverty and lifestyle, he covers up the specific cases of vaccine damage in a general statistic.
The Failure of the “Solidarity Argument”:
Medical Ethics: The foundation of medicine is “Informed Consent” and individual risk assessment. Forcing a healthy young person (socially or via QR codes) to take a risk with a new type of vaccine for theoretical group protection - which ultimately turned out not to even work against infection - is a violation of medical ethics.
Product vs. Promise: If a product does not prevent you from getting the disease and does not prevent you from passing it on, then the term 'vaccine' is misleading in the classic sense. It should have been sold as an individual therapeutic treatment for at-risk groups, not as a mandatory social obligation.
by stretching the definition of “vaccine” they got it on the market. According to sound scientists, it is “gene therapy”. point!
Chomsky put it very nicely at the time:
‘The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum….’
You now also see this with the excess mortality 'debate'. Apparently excess mortality can now be mentioned in a newspaper such as AD, but still only within very narrow parameters. Causes of excess mortality include: delayed care or long Covid. Vaccine damage is something that can still be mentioned, but only using fearful words such as 'online witch hunt' and of course only 'balanced' with an 'expert'. Words such as witch hunt serve here as a kind of electric fence, which is necessary to keep the reading public within the bounds of propriety. And of course the last word always lies with the authority.
The fact that authority and polarizing words such as 'witch hunt' only disrupt a scientific discussion (in which anyone can in principle propose any possibility as a hypothetical cause of a phenomenon, no matter how implausible it sounds to the ears of the 'expert'), is an open door that is firmly closed by using words such as witch hunt, which the authority - of course - in all its omniscience, considers itself superior to. Saying that a new virus is not needed to explain ALL excess mortality since 2020 as medical negligence is taboo.
It reminds me of that MH370 story, the plane that disappeared from radar in 2014. No one knew where the plane had gone, after which the consensus said: it must have crashed somewhere between Australia and Antarctica, after which a piece of the ocean was combed there. Why crashed there? No one knew, but it was said and then there are always mad scientists who want to search there. This is also the case with long Covid, which is also like a crashed MH370, which the consensus says must be the cause of excess mortality. So let's look there. Of course, nothing is found there, because there was no new virus, and therefore no long covid.
MH370 debris was eventually found by (non-subsidized) beachcombers on the East Coast of Africa. Which (if I remember correctly) didn't stop the subsidized research into finding MH370 somewhere near Antarctica (it was paid for, that's how it was...). In the same way, the causes of the excess mortality (post 2020) have long been found by unsubsidized… beachcombers who keep their eyes open and publish on websites and forums that are firmly excluded from newspapers such as AD and 'science'.
My apologies for this long comment, but I guess I just had to get it out.
I almost forgot the most important thing: the fact that the causes for excess mortality post 2020 have long been found will not stop the (subsidized) expert from looking for the causes elsewhere, because that is what he is paid for!
Your reaction to the alleged “online witch hunts” is funny, most likely the writer meant attacks that were aimed in the opposite direction than in your interpretation. But you're absolutely right, inappropriate attacks go both ways.
It is now high time (and hopefully increasingly possible, I interpret such articles as in AD as bright spots) that the parties with extreme views finally come together again for serious exchanges of ideas.
I certainly saw what was probably meant by those 'witch hunts', but it was a header after a defender's unintentional cross.
Interesting discussion going on here. On the one hand Maarten Keulemans, on the other hand 'the rest', the avid Virus Varia readers. It looks like Anton is working on a substantiated answer to Maarten's contribution, I don't want to get involved in that, but I still wanted to share the following. I think it is commendable that Maarten is involved in this discussion.
Seen from a distance, a referee seems necessary. The neutral observer sees that people are bombarding each other from deep trenches. The positions have been taken, the ammunition, in the form of hyperlinks, references to studies, percentages, etc., is shot back and forth. Neither party will come to any different insights.
You may wonder how both parties arrived at their positions. I see a big difference there. I suspect that most skeptics have been through the same path as myself. One a bit faster than the other, but somewhere doubt struck, something was wrong. Then you start searching, you start to question the certainty with which statements were made. You see that the figures as presented are not correct at all, and the doubts are gradually increasing. Certainties that once existed disappear. Such as general confidence in vaccinations but also in government institutions. You become open to other views and your worldview slowly changes. Cardiologist Aseem Malhotra once promoted the Covid 'vaccines' on the BBC. A long-time critical thinker about nutrition, he initially believed in the Covid story and the way out in the form of 'vaccines'. Until he also changed his mind and became a fierce critic. Is there one scientist who has taken the other route? So you were first critical and then started to believe in the beneficial effect of the 'vaccines'? I don't know them. It seems like one-way traffic. Think about that. It is not easy to go against established opinion. People have risked their careers, lost their jobs, even been arrested for dissent. They are brave people, such as Jona Walk, but many others. They have to constantly fight against the current. Not because they are necessarily against the system, but because they have come to realize that there is more to it.
The 'believers' in the other trench are many more and have 'science' behind them. Or not? Do they also have doubts but don't dare to express them? I have personally experienced that there is never just one domino that falls, but that the Covid narrative is just one of many. I recommend everyone to read 'Dissolving Illusions' by Susan Humphries and Roman Bystrinanyk. It puts vaccine developments in a slightly different light than usual (understatement). It has of course also been 'debunked' again, but I thought that was rather weak.
So in a debate between the 2 camps, I belong to the skeptics. Not because I am necessarily against everything, but because I have come to the conclusion myself (with the help of others) that I no longer trust it. The 'believers' bite the bullet and cite studies that, in their view, substantiate their position. The skeptics seem to do the same, after which the 'debunking' of studies and scientists begins.
Prediction: Anton will come up with a thorough answer, carefully substantiated as always, but that will not change Maarten's views. This is actually not about Maarten or Anton, but about a completely different perception of reality. Maarten is part of a collective. 'We' experience a completely different reality. Maybe we should think about that.
Still a long story, but I wanted to share it too :-)
Good story Cees! If you look at it objectively. In reality there is not only perception, a perception created by narrative does not forget that. I can only speculate about Maarten's interests, but I do have strong suspicions about that. It is no secret that Volkskrant boss has indicated that he will speak with one word, i.e. to implement what the government recommends. The government has a very strong interest in ensuring that the narrative remains intact. Vaccines work, the measures work, the government follows the science. We all know that if you strip these statements down, very little remains and real science stays far away from these types of systematic guiding statements. The real discussion is whether it benefits the people if it emerges that we are not dealing with experts but with behavioral management and financial interests. Will the country be better with an objective media or will it be better if we are all kept in line and remain stupid. On the one hand, I understand those elites...
Jillis, sorry: you are really crazy if you seriously think that.
I am independent to my core, which is why I went into journalism and not information work. Literally *everyone* who has ever met or spoken to me knows this. I would put it on the front page IMMEDIATELY if there was really something seriously wrong with the vaccines: it would be a wonderful scoop. And if my editor-in-chief tried to shut me up, I'd run away in a moment, shouting bloody murder! How do you come up with this kind of defamatory idiocy?
Maurice De Hond has a different idea about You Mr. K! I and many others are inclined to follow him...
Certainly Maarten. I must be crazy.
In 2020, I started the entire aerosol discussion with Maurice with the drop theory types. I was completely crazy then. It's strange that the entire opinion on this has changed since then.
When the vaccination passport and two G, that was complete nonsense that we also prevented with Maurice. People became infected more quickly in confined spaces.
Then the effectiveness of the vaccines and the conclusions of the Nivel report that we have undermined. Vaccination prevents 30 percent mortality? Who follows the science here??
And a personal note like you make here. I have gone into this completely objectively, without bias. I just want logic and science to take the lead so that people can reap the benefits.
I have no agenda and am not against vaccination or the like. I follow your posts on X and that cynical undertone clearly strikes me: not as an objective person.
Recently you also introduced the RIVM baseline as an argument, while RIVM explicitly indicated this as not done. The Spanish flu baseline that you provide from Ruben van Gaalen has been manipulated and even falsified. Shall I continue?
And then you call me an Idiot by not calling you objective. Do you still believe it yourself?
You know, maybe there isn't that much wrong with the vaccines. But it certainly seems so. Very convincing appearance indeed. There are piles of alarm signals. The data all points in the same direction. There are also errors in the studies you cite.
We ring the bell loudly, with all our might. Why would we do that? Do you really think because of the donate button? Together with Herman, I have earned approximately one average monthly salary in five years. This work has cost me new business, money, a lot of time and part of my circle of acquaintances (including many doctors). It shows your ignorance if you throw donation buttons into the fray.
At the same time, crucial data is being shielded or delivered mutilated, after repeated court orders. That's a scientific scandal. Reports do appear regularly from the corner that supported, recommended and imposed the vaccines.
Independent research proposals are rejected; reports, substantiated criticisms and suggestions are discarded without any substantive counterargument.
Promised cooperation and collaboration is unexpectedly broken off by government agencies, and well-meaning stakeholders react in surprise. Presumably the result of a quick pre-scan of the figures in question or else after a message from above (State interest, after all, Kuipers said.)
I can't think of any other arguments. Do you?
You stand up for a healthy and sensible climate policy. If only you cared as much about the scientific climate. You should want to challenge rather than defend the current climate of shadyness, data obfuscation and excuses.
We had high hopes for the last ring of defense against the government: critical journalism. A science journalist is expected to at least puncture that appearance of guilt. I think this is the big picture that makes you suspicious in many eyes. Not whether you have ever written a critical piece.
P.S.: Have you already thought about a piece about van Gaalen's excuses? And once asked him why such a renowned scientist, Prof. Dr. actually, does that? What inspires such a man, spokesperson for the widely respected CBS, to substantiate policy with demonstrable inaccuracies? Isn't that much more interesting than neatly placing the government's output on the shelf as a shelf stacker (as you have sometimes described your work)?
Thanks Anton,
Good points. And agree, it's lame to blame your donate button activism, I won't do that anymore. It comes from the fact that there are international thinkers who have simply become rich from views and donations. Such a Robert Malone earned at least $31,200 PER MONTH!
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/03/technology/robert-malone-covid.html
Those “piles of alarm signals”: I don't see them. Or more precisely: when I seriously investigate the “red flags”, they *invariably* turn out to be simply wrong; I can't help it either.
Now again: commenter 'c' claims that hospital wards are full of young people with cancer. I then ask: could you please put me in touch? Nothing. Herman once talked about a nursing home where there was mass death after vaccination. I asked: which one? Nothing. I then checked with one of my contacts to see if anything had happened at one of the nursing homes in Drenthe. That was not the case: there were horrific Covid deaths, and after the vaccination rounds they decreased.
In other words: I think I'm doing my job as the “last ring of defense against the government” just fine. Also those critical pieces that you say you missed: I just wrote dozens of them. But of course I cannot protect myself against a 'feeling'.
(In concrete terms: Van Gaalen made his statements in another newspaper, of course I have nothing to do with that, right?)
The salient point remains: either all institutions, universities, journalists, doctors and media in the world are asleep, corrupt and looking away. Or you have created an illusion for yourself that you maintain with self-affirmation, simply because you have fallen deeply into distrust - a process that Cees Mul beautifully described.
And yes, come up with The Proof that I am wrong and something is seriously wrong - apart from, of course, the dramatic individual cases of patients, whom I also know and who have been affected by side effects that are irreverently hidden away in the small print of the package leaflet. You know where to find me for an interview.
It sounds crazy but we are on the same page. And I don't want to offend anyone, but I also can't defend all the commenters here.
You don't have to defend the AD either, you could (I think) be a bit more concerned about the spread of misinformation by a government institution and someone whose word is in your mind like God's word in an elder. With his Spanish Flu, for example.
Regarding that care institution with those deaths: That must have been Covid and the vaccinations unfortunately came just too late... You remember that, right? Was all about the media.
I am listing some red flags for you. I'm just very busy with my work at the moment (migrations of websites and mailboxes and such, I have to keep my head on track) so it's not going as fast as I would like. Maybe I should do it in parts. I'll take another look this afternoon after I update the mortality monitor.
Have you read the substantiation of the Mortality Standard? If not, do that. The short version is doable. Or else the longer full report, which has been shoved in the drawer without any substantive response.
The abbreviated version (as a note for the House of Representatives), including a link to the report, can be found here: The need for a standard mortality rate. And don't consult an expert, just think for yourself!
No rush Anton. And I find your story about that standard mortality seriously interesting, I completely missed it at the time. It seems convincing. But here too, I see convincing stories all day long (from the genre: 'breakthrough against cancer', 'music helps against surgical pain', 'AI finds Alzheimer's drug'), most of which are incorrect upon closer inspection. So here too I immediately ask myself: is this correct, what assumptions are behind it, what do biostatisticians and demographers think of this? To be continued.
Actually, the Standard Mortality Rate is much more important than all those other topics. That lies at the basis.
The miracle cures mentioned above are predominantly pharmaceutical products or interventions. Undoubtedly with products and/or supervisors/advisors who promise to solve something. The Standard Mortality does not solve anything, on the contrary. It saddles certain people with a problem that they want to keep far from themselves. We don't sell anything else.
I thought the assumptions were well explained. In a nutshell:
In fact, that's all.
It is actually the basis of the actuarial method. This has no longer been sufficient for actuaries since 2021. They have now decided to weave additional excess mortality terms into their model. After all, they have to predict the actual figures as accurately as possible for policy, pension funds and insurance, etc.
Their forecast tables have therefore been artificially increased in line with the reality of recent years. They expect a return to the normal trend, but they have already had to extend the period in which that will happen several times.
It is the difference between predicted BMI and target weight BMI.
What biostatisticians and demographers think of the Norm Mortality will depend greatly on whether they are government funded (usually they are, except for the pensioners) and whether they have already painted themselves into a corner, and which one. You do not have to ask affiliates of the RIVM or CBS. We already know what they think about it.
Ronald Meester, Maarten Formerod, Jan van der Zanden and Theo Schetters have in any case linked their names to the principle of Norm Mortality. I don't know if others want to risk that too. But if you can collect signatures from your extensive scientific relationships: I'd love to! 😋 The more people take note of it, the better.
How objective are you when you take everything out of context? Or exaggerates. Disrespectful! Also very strange behavior for a journalist.
Um, c? *You* wrote:
>In my family a young person with a form of cancer that did not occur BEFORE 2020 and that has now filled an entire department in a hospital
And then *I* am the one exaggerating? Or you still have to be able to show me that 'entire department' full of young people with previously unknown cancer, of course.
I have already answered that. A good journalist knows how to find confirmation in the public figures because I am not a journalist but I have found enough about it. What I was shocked by are the assumptions (increase perhaps due to 5G radiation? No research but "it could be" and that in an article... That couldn't do any harm... Anton, where did you get your tinfoil hat? Models (I understand because one must have treatments and treatment codes for the future) and not counting in models of already deceased persons, etc. Read, for example, about proton radiation. Shocking to read that it turned out to be more deadly for a certain type of cancer and that is why it has been more deadly since November It will no longer be used for those patients until 2025. I assume that everyone here will inform themselves very well if a medical problem arises. And with the same qualities, they will try to get to the bottom of it for others who are unable to do so. My family member has more than a 90% chance of survival, but with a completely different view of the future, with more fellow sufferers than we consider desirable here and which could have been prevented if the mainstream media had been really critical immediately in 2020.
Anton, you promised, but you don't have to do it for me. The outcome (Keulemans' response) can also be told without saying anything above the line about Keulemans. Belittlement, what you say is you, look there (if you point out something irrefutable) (you get a Leslie Nielsen in the naked gun: nothing to see here!), and if you ask him about that piece from which you can conclude that in 2020 in at least three hospitals (including the LUMC) everyone (read: everyone, no one excepted) who was admitted to an ICU with serious respiratory complaints and a positive PCR was NOT screened for TTV admission or he/she was not (also) had a pulmonary embolism - which meant that this potentially fatal diagnosis was missed in at least some of these people - Maarten has still not found the time to read that piece, interpret it, and put it on the front page of the Volkskrant.
By the way, here is that piece, peer reviewed and all, in which you can read for yourself that what I am stating here was nothing more or less than medically negligent action during the very deadly 'first wave'.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049384820301572
Truly, that Maarten Keulemans with his '30 years of experience' responds here and continues to respond is... amazing. It seems to me as if the 80s tennis player and now very elderly Ivan Lendl (all top tennis players) appears on our court to play a game of tennis with us and thinks he can win. But his time has passed. You want to respect such a man and so you respond courteously (I still find the reactions of you, Cees, others, very courteous to Maarten Keulemans). But what do you get in return? The ball in the net, or an inbound ball given hard by Lendl/Keulemans as: Out! That's what you get in return.
Responding to Maarten Keulemans is objectionable, not because his arguments are so strong, but weak and can only be refuted in the most banal way. That is, in a way, embarrassing to have to do, and therefore perhaps better left out in a piece above the line.
Er, Willem: you know I'm the youngest here, right?
Amen!
However, I would like to add that I am not just skeptical. I have also made graphs where a clear effect of vaccination has been observed. (And that's a good thing, because if we inject something into our body, the negative effects must also have at least positive effects).
But we must also be honest about adverse effects. And in my opinion that is not the case. Now I don't expect a complete turnaround. Look at smoking and asbestos, for example. It took years before people (very) slowly came to their senses. Or watch the film Dark Waters, about PFAs.
I would really like to read the nuances of the MSM. Just a critical article about heathy vaccine effect. And not just name its existence, but also quantify it. How much effect does that have?
But it's just a matter of shooting arguments back and forth, and never delving deeper into what someone else claims. After all, you can learn something there.
Thanks Cees. An important side note: I *am* a neutral observer! How do you (do you?) come to the conclusion that I am in “a collective” or in “a trench”?
I am *always* looking for other sides of files, and I also write exuberantly about them. I remember so well: from the end of 2020 to the beginning of 2021, everyone was fascinated by vaccines as a last resort, and I was about the only one who spoke out to critics who pointed out that it doesn't work that way, that vaccines always have side effects, that vaccines are not the solution, that no vaccine has ever been made that prevents respiratory infections - anyway.
That still applies. If something was really wrong, do you really think I wouldn't put it big on the front page? How do you get to it? You understand that journalists like me love nothing more than 'scoring' with news? What do you think helps us win journalistic prizes, sell newspapers, and make headlines?
The invitation to you again: those nursing homes that would have been 'depopulated' by vaccines, those hospital wards that would be full of vaccination victims, those arteries clogged with clots: Give. It. By means of.
And every time I ask that, it's…exactly, crickets.
Maarten, I mentioned two nursing organizations a while ago (because you asked) but then you remained silent. Research into mortality after vaccination at a nursing organization where Connie Helder was on the board and later became a minister. Where is your article? The documentary 'De Silte Screams' would like to appear on the front page of the Volkskrant WITH the panel discussions and without 'van Gaaltjes'.
And the many articles here at virusvaria that could benefit you for years to come if you really read (researched) them and about which parliamentary questions have even been asked.
Most vaccination victims do not sit on a terrace but you have found one, yes... There is and will be no help/care for corona vaccination victims in the Netherlands, registering with C-support and saying that you have long-covid was sometimes a way out, but the money tap has been turned off. It means that everyone with serious side effects comes knocking everywhere and nowhere and also spread over time. The blood clots are also not in the same place for everyone... The UWV cannot handle the work, so ask them about the increased numbers of people who are disabled. Ambulance journeys have increased, more often towed by the fire brigade and trauma helicopters have been flown out much more often in recent years, parliamentary questions have also been asked about this, but this too has been responded with fallacies... enough Passed.Given. I would say. I look forward to a nice article from Anton here!
Maarten you say that you: “allowed critics to speak out who pointed out[…] that no vaccine has ever been created that prevents respiratory infections […] If there really was something wrong, do you really think I wouldn't put it big on the front page?”
Very good of you, and indeed, that is what a medical expert I regularly consulted about corona and vaccines also told me - and even that ALL doctors (should) know that. More precisely, he told me that vaccines injected into the arm cannot stop respiratory infections and then infecting others until the infection enters the blood, only nasal vaccines that work directly on the mucous membranes can really stop it.
This meant that the “2G” system promoted by much of the world was misleading and life-threatening, because vaccinated people could also infect others but did not have to be tested. That was very empty.
Mea culpa: I only spread the word to a small circle and did not go to the newspaper with it.
But did you really put that big on the front page?
Score, win prizes, make the front page, sell a lot. Sounds like a sports competition for journalists.
What about the thorough, thorough digging: finding the truth? Where not scoring quickly but selling less (losing subscribers), having difficulty getting published or not getting published?
Does that still exist or is it just about tension and sensation, what-I-experience-at-the-time-of-corona and the display of the main stream opinions (expert opinions: lowest category in terms of evidence) within the narrative.
Instead of asking critical questions based on acquired expertise (It really is not a heavy scientific matter. Although the illogic of certain assumptions often makes it seem incomprehensible).
I'd say go to work. Free yourself from the delusions of the day. Realize you weren't neural. Make a study of it, form your own opinion instead of borrowing from the 'experts'.
Admit it is a lot to ask.
Maarten, by collective I mean that there is a collective ideology that vaccines are by definition life-saving. I don't know the percentage, but probably at least 80% of the population does not think critically about vaccinations. Because there is already consensus about it. There must have been vaccines that have prevented diseases, but as you yourself indicate (and as Anthony Fauci has admitted), a working vaccine against respiratory infections has never been developed. If it doesn't work, you are left with the disadvantages. The idea of 'squashing' a virus (Rutte) and vaccinating our way out of the 'pandemic' is crazy, has nothing to do with science. But it is part of the collective ideology. I was able to sit through Hugo and Mark's first press conference, but during the second my blood pressure rose too much because of the nonsense they were talking. Most of the population swallowed it. The alarming graphs of the RIVM (Jacco Wallinga) inspired by Neil Ferguson in the UK. Pure scaremongering. The collective accepted it all, that's where 'we' differ from the crowd it seems. The big difference between the collective and the skeptics is trust in science and government agencies. Confidence in vaccines has been instilled from childhood. It is part of our worldview. Suppose this trust is unjustified. Then everything tilts. So the collective closes ranks. Not as a conspiracy but as self-protection. The critics are the heretics.
I am genuinely surprised at the big difference in perception. Most of humanity believes the story of a deadly pandemic that ended thanks to life-saving vaccines. A much smaller portion does not believe it, and these are precisely the critical thinkers. No peripheral figures, march scientists who have been marginalized by the Covid period. Sizing each other up and calling each other names does not help us get closer to an explanation. Suppose around 20% is critical, are all these people crazy? Anton has posted a list of dissidents elsewhere on this site:
https://virusvaria.nl/het-lot-van-covid-dissidenten/
These are no small names.
Your last point to my response: the depopulation of nursing homes. I don't mention that anywhere. I just want to get out of the trenches and understand how people can look at a subject in such a completely different way. There was a comment in the film on that subject. it was said that many deaths occurred after the vaccination rounds in nursing homes. The explanation? The rollout was just too late, so people still died from Covid. If this is really the case, it is a big scandal. I would like to see the substantiation.
I'm sorry you didn't respond to my comment. For example, why the positions of scientists shift from belief to skepticism, but there is never a skeptic who still realizes that the governments and associated agencies actually had a point.
We're not going to get out of this, and I think the cause is deeper than just Covid. It's about someone's worldview. By definition, this is relatively superficial, simply because no human being can be an expert on every topic that comes up. The world is too big, too complex and there are too many shades of gray. So you are dependent on the information sources you use. That may partly explain the difference in views.
Cees, with all due respect: inform yourself, because you are mainly fooling yourself.
* The vaccines provide excellent protection AGAINST SERIOUS ILLNESS (and death). Hugo de Jonge has overplayed his hand here by repeatedly suggesting that the vaccine would work like a tetanus shot or something like that: one shot and you can never get sick again. Previously it was like the flu shot, everyone knew pretty quickly: you can still get sick, but LESS SERIOUSLY. You can see that in all the figures: after the vaccine campaign, hospital occupancy fell. (And mortality, but that insight still needs to sink in a bit ;-))
* The modeling is really SUPER SIMPLE, a so-called 'seir' model, a game board, in other words, in which the virus is passed on between intensive contacts with a certain probability. It has been and has been used for decades, has been extensively validated (checked whether it reflects reality) and Jacco Wallinga is a kind of world authority in this. The criticism you CAN have is that the RIVM communicated the results of the model very clumsily, as a kind of cloud of opportunities. As a result, it LOOKED as if a huge disaster was coming, while in reality the chance of that happening was very small, and the Netherlands was locked down too strictly a few times, as I wrote several times in the newspaper. (Especially the last lockdown with omikron was mainly motivated by political reasons)
* There are PLENTY of scientists who started out quite skeptical and then changed their minds. In 2020, there were VERY FEW experts who believed that it would be possible to create an effective vaccine, for example. I spoke to them frequently. But they changed their minds as soon as they saw the data. Or take the origin of the virus: you would almost forget it, but the idea that the virus came from a lab came from VIROLOGISTS who thought it was strange that the virus has a kind of turbo button (a 'furin cleavage site'). There was then a meeting with corona experts and the skeptics became convinced that it was purely natural.
That list of dissidents: take ten of them. And see whether they meet the minimum conditions you can expect: (a) is still employed by an independent body such as a university, (b) has no financial interest in vaccine skepticism (e.g. written a book, donations), (c) is politically neutral (not at a think tank or something) and (d) has a medical background.
I don't think you'll have any left!
Maarten, I'm afraid we're not going to agree. We're going in circles. One more time, because in a way I also enjoy this kind of discussion, but it is also starting to become tiring.
I think you contradict yourself. In an earlier comment you confirm that a working vaccine against respiratory infections has never been produced, and now you claim that they do have an effect. The flu vaccine is a good example. Since its introduction, the number of flu deaths has not decreased significantly or at all. Recent study from the Cleveland Clinic here:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.01.30.25321421v3
Risk of flu for vaccinated people is 27% higher than for non-vaccinated people. Interesting to say the least. You accuse dissidents of making money with books or writing articles. This all pales in comparison to the revenue model of the flu shot and the Covid 'vaccines'. If you find that the effectiveness is lower than expected, you must also re-evaluate the risks. I think that's called informed consent. Oh no, that never happened. If you wanted to live a nice life, go on holiday and not be a 'granny killer' you had to get the syringe. Side effects? There are none (that is what the genius De Jonge literally said).
The problem with the models may be that they are super simple. Within one family, some people contract a respiratory disease and others do not. It has to do with personal health, we would call it resistance in the past. No one knows exactly how diseases are transmitted. You call the RIVM's communication clumsy, I call it manipulation, because everything was done to portray the matter as blackly as possible. The 'awkwardness always went in the same direction. ' This 'clumsy' communication has pitted population groups against each other. They were also frequently quoted by 'experts' such as Ab Osterhaus. A critical observer could see a pattern of conscious fear-mongering.
Do you have names of scientists who have been tilted? So first skeptical about the narrative of a deadly pandemic that has been 'defeated' thanks to smart scientists and a vaccine rollout. But then we started to realize that the lockdowns, the QR codes, the border closures, face masks, the 'vaccines' ultimately saved us?
The list of dissidents:
(a)Jona Walk is an example, many critics are indeed with Emirate, and that is no coincidence. Ronald Meester also still works at the university. But you probably don't take either of them seriously. This argument of yours shows that criticism is not allowed within the institutions. It will either be very difficult for you or you will be fired (Rogier Louwen).
(b)This is not an argument. When people lose their jobs and start publishing pieces, they sometimes need money. They no longer have any income. It is insane to assume that people become skeptical for profit.
(c) I find this a completely strange argument. So a dissident is not allowed to belong anywhere, but the government is allowed to organize itself in clubs such as the Disinformation Think Tank? This Think Tank included public figures who could express their views widely on national TV.
(d)Many of those dissidents have a medical background. I mentioned Aseem Malhotra, but you didn't respond to that. Moreover, the major drivers of fear have no medical background. Mark Rutte and Hugo de Jonge (Minister of Health, for example). So, again, double standards
Just enough. The weather is nice, time for other things.
German reasonableness of data analyzers against virologists fairy tale Drosten.
https://youtu.be/338RFCA_7XQ?si=6gavJLtW3MVfXy8J
“There was a comment in the film on that subject. It was said that many deaths occurred after the vaccination rounds in nursing homes.”
It might be interesting to look at Denis Rancourt's graphs, presented at the Back to the Future conference (Netherlands, October 25, 2025).
There, two comparisons are shown directly next to each other at 80+ in the Netherlands:
– above: vaccination rollout versus mortality
– bottom: number of tests performed versus mortality
What is striking is the difference in time patterns.
The vaccination graph does not show a consistent and repeated time relationship between rollout and mortality peaks.
In the test graph, on the other hand, you see several times that mortality peaks follow relatively shortly after periods of intensive testing among people aged 80+ in the Netherlands from 2020 onwards.
Is that in itself evidence of causality? No.
But it is also not just a trivial detail if one variable does not show a pattern and the other does.
Rancourt himself leaves several explanations open and does not rule out that relevant mechanisms may play a role in test campaigns.
And therein lies the crux: if this pattern only occurs in testing, then it makes sense to also investigate whether the test itself can play a role (directly or indirectly) through a physical effect on vulnerable people.
That is not a conclusion, but a logical research question that follows from the pattern itself.
Here is the link to Rancourt's presentation, visible from minute 34:05;
https://denisrancourt.substack.com/p/excess-mortality-what-really-caused
He says around minute 30 “At best you cannot find a benefit from vaccinations”. And he draws attention to boosters.
Furthermore, I don't completely agree with him (he seems to have a blind spot for corona!). But before I continue:
His presentation is worth watching in its entirety and having a discussion about it – a lot of the Netherlands and international comparisons which is useful because some countries are more data open on certain topics than the Netherlands. Thanks for the link!
But is it a good idea to discuss that here in the comments of this article? In my opinion, there is a lot of material for debunking and for further embroidery.
Anton, would you perhaps like to write an article about that presentation (but don't be in a hurry, that presentation is from last year)? Possibly a short article, as a coat rack for further discussion in the comments.
I used to fall for it when the mainstream media committed character assassination over deviant voices. Now it piques my interest: this person must have something to say. Just like left and right are actually interchanged as far as I'm concerned.
that the MSM are censored like the plague is now an open secret….
No Lucas, we are not “censored”. Otherwise we would never have brought to light the benefits affair, the face mask case, the thromboses caused by AstraZeneca, the Teeven deal or anything else?
It is also a classic fallacy: “the vaccines are harmful, and if they are not, they actually are, because then it is the messenger who is lying.”
PS: the MSM also have a revenue model, so that accusation is really questionable at the very least. …and that one is quite questionable. That also feeds a feedback loop. More dependence on advertisements results in poorer advertising (pun intended). This causes subscribers to leave, increasing dependency. Then you can start arguing with “editorial status” and so on. But that kite really doesn't fly anymore. And those prizes are also (indirectly) sponsored, so yes...
“You don't see it until you realize it.” ~ J. Cruyff
Het punt van van Gaalen over de hoogte van oversterfte in België en Zweden versus Nederland is (onbedoeld ?) interessanter dan je zou denken.
Dat komt omdat het niet juist is dat Zweden veel hogere vaccinatiegraden in 2021 of 2022 zou hebben (eerste en tweede vaccinatie, eerste en tweede booster). Integendeel, Nederland en Zweden hebben haast identieke (relatief lage) vaccinatiegraden in 2021 en 2022.
België daarentegen kende wèl aanzienlijk hogere vaccinatiegraden (zie ECBC of ook de tabel in het rapport van Gijs van Loef van december 2024, blz.9). Het plaatje is ook anders dan de (door Anton) geraadpleegde en in tabel gezette AI-tools aangeven.
Bekijken we het door de landen gevoerde beleid vanuit breder perspectief dan nam Nederland een soort middenpositie in tussen België en Zweden. Nederland kende lage vaccinatiegraden, net als Zweden maar had wèl (net als België) een vrij repressief beleid voor wat betreft de niet-farmaceutische maatregelen tijdens de pandemie-bestrijding, terwijl Zweden daarin juist heel voorzichtig en gematigd was. Op grond van deze middenpositie zou je dus ook een gemiddelde score verwachten voor Nederla bij de resultaten van het beleid (zoals de reductie van de oversterfte) tussen de resultaten van België en Zweden in.
Maar niets is minder waar. Want volgens de meest recente berekening (18 maart 2026) van een groep van 14 landen in Noord- en West-Europa van de oversterfte in 2025 )door Gijs van Loef) blijkt dat Nederland verreweg de hoogste sterfte kent van de groep van 14 vergelijkbare landen, waaronder ook België en Zweden. De hoge score van Nederland werd in eerdere jaren ook gevonden. Nieuw in 2025 is echter dat over de hele linie de oversterfte ( t.o.v. de gemiddelde sterfte in 2016-2019) wèl een stuk lager was dan in 2024. Behalve dus in Nederland waar de sterfte zelfs nog licht toenam in 2025 (naar 13,8%)!
De oversterfte-percentages in Zweden (1,4%) en in België (3,4%) zijn met Italië (0,9%) het laagste van de groep van landen. Er is verder een grotere middengroep met Duitsland en Frankrijk met scores tussen 6,3% en 8,5%, en een groepje achtervolgers van Nederland met scores tussen 9,7% en 10,4%. Nederland steekt daar thans ver bovenuit en verkeert dus, wat de aanhoudend hoge oversterfte betreft, in een volstrekt isolement in noord- en west Europa.
Er is maar één conclusie mogelijk over deze Nederlandse starheid: de hoge oversterfte in alleen Nederland is hetzij een onbedoeld gevolg van unieke kenmerken van het Nederlands beleid, hetzij is het een (verborgen) doelstelling van het beleid zelf.
Gijs van Loef denkt aan de eerste mogelijkheid: de oversterfte zou volgens hem gewoon het gevolg zijn van het Nederlandse beleid om principes van marktwerking in de zorg te gebruiken. Dat is blijkbaar niet het geval elders in Europa. Hij geeft echter niet aan hoe dit nu de bestrijding van oversterfte zou remmen, en zo ja, of een aanpassing van dit beleid dan niet mogelijk zou zijn. Misschien is de prioriteit van primaire gezondheidsdoelen (en in het bijzonder de wenselijkheid een hoge sterfte te reduceren) onvoldoende in budgettering en salariëring van zorginstellingen, personeel en het ministerie verwerkt. Maar waarom wordt er dan getreuzeld om die afspraken aan te passen?
De tweede mogelijkheid, dat de hoge oversterfte een (verborgen) beleidsdoel zou zijn en daarom bewust niet wordt ingegrepen, lijkt, in eerste instantie, absurd, maar kan helaas niet helemaal worden uitgesloten. Het is namelijk zo dat bij de de beantwoording van kamervragen door minister Agema in de vorige kabinetsperiode werd aangegeven dat de het Nederlands zorgbeleid onder supervisie van de NAVO staat. Nederland is het enige bekende land waar deze supervisie openlijk wordt aanvaard. Beleidsmaatregelen in Nederland hebben dus de goedkeuring nodig van de NAVO. Het zou bijvoorbeeld het geval kunnen zijn dat door de NAVO de oversterfte in Nederland in een ‘internationale afweging’ van de NAVO wordt weggestreept tegen bijvoorbeeld sterfte elders en het belang van hoge(re) veiligheid.
Er lopen in Brussel genoeg ‘Dr. Strangelove figuren’ rond die dit soort kosten-baten analyses dagelijks maken. Bovendien hebben is daar ook een secretaris-generaal die nog met een zwaar Srebrenica-complex zit…
Klopt allemaal, als je tenminste uitgaat van identieke injecties in alle landen. Maar er is een grote variëteit in productkwaliteit tussen batches geconstateerd en ik meen zelfs binnen batches (transport? opslag? aspiratie?). Die mogelijk oorzaak zou je ook in overweging moeten nemen. Als een relatief klein land als NL daar een paar keer pech mee heeft, ga je ook verschillen zien.
Merkwaardig dat alle AI’s het fout hebben. Ik heb die cijfers ook nog in diverse bronnen gecheckt. Wat zijn dan de juiste vaccinatiegraden, waar vinden we die dan? En hoe weten we dat die wél correct zijn?
De bron van de landelijke cijfers is ECDC (abusievelijk had ik ‘ECBC’ in het artikel geschreven). Dit is een EU-organisatie die weer data van de verantwoordelijke organisaties van de lidstaten kreeg. Zal voor NL RIVM zijn voor D RKI etc.).
Theoretisch zou het natuurlijk wel mogelijk kunnen zijn dat in NL kwalitatief inferieure vaccins zijn gebruikt en dat daarom alleen in NL de oversterfte lang op een hoog niveau blijft.
Maar waarom zouden we dit soort onwaarschijnlijke argumenten aanvoeren of is er een serieuze kans dat dit het geval is?
‘Benefit of the doubt’, om overheden vrij te pleiten? Het vermoeden van onschuld, is juist bedoeld om de burgers te beschermen tegen overheden. Niet omgekeerd. Integendeel, bij overheden zou het beginsel moeten zijn dat door hen zelf elke redelijke verdenking moet worden weggenomen.
inderdaad. Maar kun je uitleggen waarom het onwaarschijnlijk is?
Zelf ben ik er niet gerust op, ook omdat er schimmig wordt gedaan over vaccinatie/sterftecijfers, de vaccins niet zijn geserialiseerd en er wordt soms beweerd dat er geen batchnummers zijn – waarom is dat dan allemaal?