Een ander artikel van A Midwestern Doctor stond al in concept maar de actualiteit stelt steeds weer andere prioriteiten. Hieronder nu de vertaling van wederom een fantastisch AMD-artikel, dat ook inspringt op de actualiteit. Het gaat over de Verenigde Staten en legt de blauwdruk bloot die we ook in Nederland gevolgd zien. Vandaar de veralgemeniseerde titel, met 'overheden' in meervoud en in de tegenwoordige tijd.
Ik heb gedacht aan een samenvatting, aan een bespreking - maar het stuk is simpelweg te belangrijk. Een must-read, ook voor de uitgedaagden. Vandaar de integrale vertaling. De (Opmerking: ...) notes are from AMWD itself.
Original link: https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/we-now-know-how-the-government-lied
(We now know how the government lied about the COVID vaccines)
The same playbook has been used to maintain harmful vaccines for more than 250 years. Finally we have the chance to put an end to this.
A doctor from the Midwest
1 mei 2026
The story in a nutshell:
- Since the beginning of vaccination, authorities have systematically turned to unsafe and ineffective vaccines, regardless of resistance or evidence to the contrary.
- Keeping this up has required increasingly brutal methods to censor and conceal the flood of “extremely rare” injuries caused by an ever-expanding vaccination schedule.
- Senator Ron Johnson, who has worked tirelessly to expose this cover-up, recently held a Senate hearing whose title says it all: “Exposed: How Biden Health Officials Deliberately Turned a Blind Eye to Signals About the Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines.”
- Faced with a tsunami of vaccine damage too great to ignore, the FDA and CDC looked for a way to statistically debunk it. Ultimately, they chose to compare Moderna's side effect rate to Pfizer's and declare the vaccines "safe" because there was not a major difference between the two.
- When a senior FDA analyst pointed out this apparent flaw and suggested she instead compare them to less toxic vaccines, documents show the entire FDA turned on her to suppress her findings. As a result, dozens of conditions that we have all seen the COVID vaccines cause have never been officially linked to the vaccines – despite the data clearly showing that they were.
- The unprecedented damage caused by the COVID-19 vaccines has led to a historic loss of confidence in the parties who concealed this, giving us a unique opportunity to now force them to tell the truth and put an end to a vaccination experiment that has seriously damaged the health of our society.
I have long believed in a “law of equilibrium,” which states that most things are cyclical and will eventually return to equilibrium. Mechanistically, this is often due to existing phenomena that are the result of competing forces reaching a point of equilibrium (for example, you don't fall through the floor because the ground is pushing up on you as hard as gravity is pulling you down) and because nature's design uses feedback loops to maintain balance.
This process is commonly called 'negative feedback', where anything that shifts a system out of center (e.g. its 'set point') triggers a response that counteracts that change (e.g. a thermostat turning on the heat when the temperature drops too low, or turning on the air conditioning when it rises too high). Biology has many layers of these negative feedback loops (one counteracting the other, which counters the other, and so on), which together are capable of keeping the immensely complex orchestra of life running.
Conversely, “positive feedback loops,” where a shift from baseline triggers a further shift from baseline, also exist (e.g., the spread of forest fires, fruit ripening, the blood clotting cascade, the hormonal surge that triggers ovulation, or contractions during childbirth), but these are much rarer and are eventually “switched off” anyway because they quickly consume a self-limiting resource.
Vanwege het cyclische karakter van de geschiedenis heb ik gemerkt dat dezelfde vaccin-fiasco's zich keer op keer herhalen, maar elke keer weer worden vergeten, waardoor ze zich opnieuw kunnen herhalen. Kort gezegd verloopt het proces doorgaans als volgt:
- A new (questionable) vaccine is introduced and marketed with much fanfare, despite existing evidence that it does not deserve the fanfare.
- Once the vaccine reaches the population, a significant number of vaccine failures and injuries will inevitably occur.
- Once this happens, health authorities (and healthcare providers) respond by exaggerating the benefits, raising the bar from what was originally promised, and sweeping all injuries under the rug.
- This leads to increasing resistance among the public and against vaccination.
- As time goes by, the shortcomings of the vaccine go unrecognized, but vaccine failure is increasingly attributed to not enough people being vaccinated (for example, to achieve “herd immunity”). As a result, increasingly aggressive commitments are being imposed, causing increasingly strong public opposition to the program.
I have this the “vaccine-positive feedback loop” mentioned, because if everything were functioning normally, the side effects and failures of the vaccine would trigger a negative feedback reaction that would lead to the vaccination program being reversed – but instead something rather strange and unnatural happens: commitment to it increases [de term "doodsspiraal" comes to mind - red.]. I think this goes to the heart of why “vaccines are a religion” and why vaccination advocates will always push harder on what they do rather than admit mistakes.
Recognizing that this is a recurring cycle, I have focused on uncovering this cycle. I believe that we can only free ourselves from it by knowing what our society is actually trapped in.
Opmerking: een belangrijke reden waarom ik me heb gericht op overkoepelende therapieën zoals DMSO is dat hun werkingsmechanismen in veel opzichten het tegenovergestelde zijn van wat vaccins doen, wat een concrete manier biedt om te begrijpen waarom zoveel verschillende vaccins zo'n breed scala aan neurologische en auto-immuunletsels kunnen veroorzaken. Dit was bijvoorbeeld de reden waarom my recent article on DMSO in the treatment of “incurable” neurological injuries should have been so detailed, but now that it has been done, a much shorter version can (and will) be published that links to the more comprehensive summary.
The Forgotten Side of Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. To learn more about this newsletter and how others have benefited from it, click here!
Reducing “vaccination hesitancy”.
One of the most depressing aspects of the “vaccine positive feedback loop” is how consistently both doctors and government officials sweep vaccine harm under the rug in order to maintain public confidence in the vaccine. The earliest example I found is one that Suzanne Humphries brought to light:
From heer Henry May wrote to the Birmingham Medical Review in January 1874 that deaths from vaccination often went unreported due to loyalty to the practice. Often a vaccinated person was recorded as having died from another condition, such as chickenpox, or incorrectly listed as unvaccinated.
Cover-up of polio
In producing the original (Salk) polio vaccine, manufacturers faced a delicate trade-off: the live poliovirus had to be completely inactivated with formaldehyde to ensure safety, but excessive inactivation could damage key viral antigens and weaken the immune response. This required a series of careful steps to strike an appropriate balance, and during the clinical trials, three different parties (Salk, the US government and the manufacturers) tested the vaccines for safety.
Once the vaccine was approved, changes were made to the vaccine to increase efficacy (a preservative was removed), inactivation protocols were significantly relaxed (increasing efficacy), and testing was delegated to manufacturers (despite major deviations from Salk's inactivation protocols) — all of this was essentially done to meet the high demand for the polio vaccine, as the pilot approach could not be implemented on a large scale. [benadrukking van mij; het is echt hetzelfde verhaal - red.]
As a result, it was declared “safe, effective and potent” on April 12 (based on the recent clinical trials) and was licensed that same day. The next day the mass vaccination campaign began and around April 24 the first cases of polio were reported in vaccinees, ultimately leading to 40,000 vaccinees developing non-paralyzing polio, 200 paralyzing polio and 10 dying.
To solve this PR nightmare (which, given previous commitments, seriously shook public confidence in vaccines), the US government chose to blame a manufacturing defect on one of the five manufacturers (who recalled their vaccines), but stand by the other four. However, to Turtles All the Way Down (and Paul Offit) to quote:
Alexander Langmuir, the CDC's chief epidemiologist, and Dr. Neil Nathanson, who headed the CDC's polio surveillance unit at the time, conducted a follow-up investigation into the Cutter incident and found that Wyeth's vaccine had also caused several cases of paralysis. After their report, the company quietly withdrew the so-called “hot lot” from sale. No one other than senior US health officials has ever seen that report.
“It was never released to the media,” Offit writes, “never shown to polio researchers, never shown to the National Foundation, never shown to polio vaccine consultants, never distributed to health care professionals, never published in medical journals, and never made available to defense attorneys in subsequent lawsuits against Cutter Laboratories. As a result, only a handful of people knew about the problem with Wyeth's vaccine.”
Years later, Nathanson said he believed the report had been suppressed because officials wanted to maintain public confidence in the Salk vaccine: "As long as the problem was with one manufacturer [i.e. Cutter] and a few lots of vaccine, it would be seen as an exception due to sloppy manufacturing or testing procedures and not as an intrinsic problem. Once it spread to a second manufacturer, it would be seen as an intrinsic problem of the product." In this scenario, Offit further clarifies, “people would be afraid to use any polio vaccine.”
Evenzo, after a panel was convened to investigate the disaster:
Perhaps the most troubling element of the entire program was the discrepancy between the risks known to be associated with it and the repeated assurances of safety.—Paul Meier, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health
The National Foundation also emphatically stated in a memo to doctors that the [polio] vaccine was completely safe and that the risk of paralysis was “zero.”
The best way to implement a new program is to decide what you think is the best decision and then not question it, ask questions in public or expose the public to open discussion of the issue. —Paul Meier (sarcastic) during an expert panel on the polio vaccine.
Ultimately, in 1984, amid lawsuits raising technical questions about whether the original batches from the 1961–1962 clinical trials met the standards of the monkey neurovirulity test, the FDA relaxed clinical trial requirements for licensure so that any remaining regulatory doubts about the vaccine's safety would not undermine the vaccination program.
Their announcement was very explicit:
Leaked transcripts have also exposed this mentality. This is what the CDC, WHO and vaccine manufacturers discussed at a private meeting in June 2000 Verstraetens CDC-analyse which showed that mercury in vaccines had a dose-dependent association with neurodevelopmental disorders. The WHO representative expressed concern that the study had ever been conducted, stating, “My mandate, as I sit here in this group, is to ensure that eventually 100,000,000 people are vaccinated... and that will have to be with thimerosal-containing vaccines unless there is a miracle,” urging the group to present the findings to the ACIP in a manner that does not “expose the pitfalls that exist in the public relations.”
Another warned that “the medico-legal findings in the study, causal or not, are appalling,” while the meeting's chairman himself, Dr. Dick Johnston, admitted: “I don't want my grandson getting a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we have a better understanding of what's going on.” Every page of the study was stamped “DO NOT COPY OR RELEASE,” and over the next three years the data was reworked until the significant correlations had largely disappeared from the version die in 2003 in Pediatricswas published – by then Verstraeten had left the CDC for GlaxoSmithKline.
Note: It should come as no surprise that despite decades of attempts to access the underlying database of this study, the CDC has blocked every attempt, leaving us to trust that their internal analyzes have always correctly determined safety.
Likewise, Gavin became Debeckers Forbidden Facts written to expose leaked transcripts of the closed meetings of the IOM's Immunization Safety Review Committee – which was tasked with definitively evaluating the safety of vaccines, but instead prioritized downplaying risks to avoid eroding public confidence and creating vaccine hesitancy. Committee members repeatedly based their approach on protecting vaccination rates. Dr. For example, Michael Kaback stated, “The more negative that presentation is, the less likely people are to get vaccinated… We're in a trap, so to speak.” Dr. Bennett Shaywitz warned that any “twisting” could lead parents to opt for single-shot vaccines [which are safer but less profitable], noting, “Everyone knows that will lower childhood vaccination rates.” Dr. Steven Goodman stressed that they had to be “very, very careful” about quantifying side effects, to avoid this being seen as an “ideological bias” that would damage public trust. This mentality shaped their wording and conclusions toward reassurance rather than full scientific transparency.
Looking to the present, as vaccine hesitancy continues to rise, the message on every platform has shifted to the urgent need to “reduce vaccine hesitancy” by censoring all information about serious side effects of vaccination. Given that Peter Marks (the FDA official essentially responsible for the COVID vaccines and stopped all research into its harmful effects) regularly spoke out publicly against vaccine misinformation and the dangerous vaccine hesitancy it caused, I suspected that the long-standing tradition of concealing vaccine harm to maintain public confidence in vaccination was alive and well during the COVID-19 pandemic. To quote recent Senate investigations:
Subcommittee documents tot nu toe [21-05-25] heeft verkregen, bieden een eenvoudig, maar verontrustend antwoord op deze vragen: functionarissen van de regering-Biden wisten begin 2021 dat de mRNA-COVID-19-injecties tot bijwerkingen konden leiden en ze bagatelliseerden de risico's [bijv. myocarditis] om te voorkomen dat het publiek gealarmeerd zou raken en er vaccinatie-terughoudendheid zou ontstaan. Als gevolg daarvan hebben zij het principe van geïnformeerde toestemming geschonden [en het vaccin verplicht gesteld voor vrijwel elke Amerikaan].
In May 2021 , senior officials at the FDA's CBER (the division responsible for overseeing the safety of COVID-19 vaccines) drafted an email to Dr. Szarfman [which provided evidence of serious vaccine injury] instructing Dr. Szarfman to “suspend the preparation and transmission of data mining reports and analyses.” Dr. Peter Marks, a staunch supporter of the COVID-19 vaccines who headed CBER at the time [and had ordered Szarfman to cease operations], eventually warned [Dr. Szarfman's boss] that Dr. Szarfman's data mining “could lead to unwarranted conflict that plays into the hands of anti-vaccine rhetoric.”
Breaking open the cover-up
Senator Johnson has worked around the clock for more than four years, regardless of the opposition he faced, to expose the COVID cartel and help those harmed by its greed. This is his first time provided convincing evidence that authorities systematically lie about vaccines, which I believe is necessary to finally break the toxic cycle we are trapped in.
He recently held a hearing to present what his investigative team had discovered in the Senate, some parts of which I would like to highlight. First, in his opening statement, he succinctly presents compelling evidence that the FDA and CDC compulsively concealed COVID vaccine harm, while also demonstrating why anyone with common sense could see that a massive cover-up was underway.
Note: The report Johnson is referring to is here to read.
click on the photo for the video in the original article
That opening statement alone was enough to drive home the intended point of the hearing. However, I chose to watch the rest, largely because I was curious how Senator Blumenthal (the pharmaceutical industry's leading defender at each of these hearings) would try to defend the indefensible.
His response was, on the one hand, somewhat disappointing: during Johnson's previous hearing, Blumenthal had briefly shown genuine surprise and interest in the plight of the vaccine-harmed, which was completely absent this time. On the other hand, it was reassuring because despite his zeal to defend the industry, he could muster only a few arbitrary denials of Johnson's findings and emotionally manipulative digressions that bore no relation to the actual evidence, demonstrating that his position on Johnson's case was indeed indefensible.
Note: I found Blumenthal's most memorable statement: "The majority report selectively selects, uses emails, and distorts an internal debate among scientists who were actively looking for ways to track side effects to support a predetermined and flawed claim that COVID-19 vaccines have done more harm than good. That is not the scientific method: having a preconceived outcome and then framing the evidence to fit the outcome."
This is because the second sentence perfectly characterizes all the scientific research conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic that rationalized ways to present the vaccines as safe and effective, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
To further substantiate his position, Blumenthal called a witness (a representative of his political base), who testified about the trauma of nearly dying from COVID and then recovering from long-term COVID symptoms — which, while tragic (and likely preventable with non-standard COVID therapies), again was completely irrelevant to the question of whether the authorities concealed vaccine damage.
As she explained her story and her desperate desire to simply be heard, I couldn't help but notice that everything she described identical was to what those harmed by the COVID vaccine routinely experience, who unlike her, have been manipulated and forgotten by the medical system and often do not recover. Senator Johnson also picked this up immediately and suggested politely that she would work with the (much more common) victims of COVID vaccine injury.
Opmerking: bij elk medicijn, beleid of elke beslissing is er een afweging tussen risico's en voordelen. Propaganda maakt misbruik van het onvermogen van mensen om dit nauwkeurig te berekenen op basis van beperkte gegevens, door de ene kant van de vergelijking te benadrukken en de andere te bagatelliseren (wat bijvoorbeeld de reden is waarom veel mensen die de mainstream media volgen oprecht geloven dat “long COVID” een veel groter probleem is dan letsel door COVID-vaccins). Evenzo gebruikten voorstanders van vaccinatie tijdens deze hoorzitting herhaaldelijk de vaak herhaalde uitspraak “vaccins redden levens”, wat weliswaar waar is, maar enorm misleidend omdat het weglaat dat vaccins in veel gevallen ook meer mensen doden dan ze redden, of veel meer letsel veroorzaken dan ze voorkomen.
Other aspects of the hearing that stood out to me included:
- After vaccination advocates tried (again) to brush off all criticism of the vaccine by highlighting how incredibly well executed the COVID response had been despite the challenges of the moment, a senator pointed out that we need to stop repeating that fable and that only by recognizing that serious mistakes were also made can we avoid making them again in the future (particularly because of how harmful they were to our children).
- Herhaaldelijk werd benadrukt (zoals uit de eerdere citaten blijkt) dat de senior FDA-analist die aantoonde dat de schadelijke effecten van vaccins werden verzwegen, dr. Szarfman, door haar collega's werd buitengesloten en door haar leidinggevenden de mond werd gesnoerd. Dit lijkt op de ervaring van Andrew Mosholder (een kinderpsychiater en veiligheidsfunctionaris bij de FDA) die in 2003 terecht vaststelde dat gegevens aantoonden dat Paxil suïcidale neigingen bij kinderen veroorzaakte, waarna zijn superieuren hem beletten het rapport te publiceren (en vervolgens a year later, once it was drained, concentrated on tracking down the whistleblower rather than taking action based on the findings).
- There were numerous attempts to evade FOIA requests, including the FDA simply halting (potentially incriminating) internal releases of data on side effects of COVID-19 vaccines, such as Szarfman's.
- One witness highlighted that all reports of vaccine side effects were designed to report only side effects that “nobody cared about,” such as pain at the injection site or fever, rather than serious and life-changing side effects that people experienced.
- Szarfman's analysis showed that 45 conditions were strongly associated with the COVID vaccines (with upper and lower limits for their increased frequency). Assuming I correctly interpreted the graph shown at the hearing, when ranked in descending order based on the lower bound (which provides a stronger argument for causality), the conditions most convincingly linked to the COVID vaccines are as follows:
- Strongest association: Product administered to unsuitable patient (Moderna), Acute myocardial infarction (Pfizer), Increased brain natriuretic peptide (Pfizer), Asymptomatic COVID-19 (Pfizer), ST segment elevation on the electrocardiogram (Moderna), Systolic blood pressure (Pfizer), COVID-19 pneumonia, Acute myocardial infarction
- Strong association: Increased brain natriuretic peptide, ischemic stroke, drainage, dementia, aspiration pneumonia, normal cardiac telemetry (indicating regular monitoring due to cardiac problems),
- Paresthesia in the ear, Magnetic resonance imaging of the heart (which is done to assess for myocarditis)
- Moderate association: Systolic blood pressure (all vaccines), Embolic stroke, Basal ganglia stroke, Cardiac assist device user, Abnormal cardiac telemetry, Ejection fraction, Sinus rhythm, Hypertensive emergency
- Zwakker maar opmerkelijk: Bell's palsy, Plotselinge hartdood, Longinfarct, Bradykinesie, Occlusie van de hersenslagader, Diastolische disfunctie, Aortastenose, May-Thurner-syndroom, Acuut linkerventrikelfalen, SARS-CoV-1-test, Chronisch hartfalen, Agonale ritme, Acute cholecystitis, Productvervanging, COVID-19-vaccinatie, Abnormale harttelemetrie, Abnormale AST/ALT-verhouding, Diafragmatische spasme, Mastoïdaire aandoening, Percutane coronaire interventie, Ruptuur van aorta-aneurysma, Thalamusinfarct
That table in turn really stood out to me, as I had previously concluded that most of the conditions on it were likely related to the COVID vaccines, as I had seen people develop them shortly after vaccination, and in many cases I would never have expected that otherwise. That, in turn, highlights a recurring theme with the COVID vaccines: the side effects were so common that people like me, with extremely limited data sets, could accurately detect the signals of harm from the vaccines — so it's hard to imagine that they were "too rare" to be identified by health authorities, who had access to infinitely larger data sets.
6. Just as the early polio vaccines had major problems when their production was scaled up for the general population, so too did the COVID vaccines (because they switched from duplicating the mRNA with PCR to having it synthesized en masse by bacteria – resulting in dangerous synthetic bacterial DNA contaminating the vaccines). At this hearing, I learned that a comparative study was to take place between the old and new production methods of Pfizer's vaccine (which, like many other "required" tests, was magically never conducted), and that Pfizer's vaccine was later changed again (the diluent) without being tested.
Finally, some participants were quite blunt about how outrageous this all was. Here for example, Senator Hawley points out that the entire COVID vaccine affair was an unconscionable money grab which the government pushed through, while “all public health problems are passed on to others, namely the American people… All costs are borne by the patients” (after which Johnson emphasizes how the government also failed those harmed by the vaccine from the start).
Or to quote a witness who, after emphasizing that the emergency authorizations for the COVID vaccines were conditional on extremely robust safety monitoring of them in the market, stated:
This is not a blind spot. The FDA was completely blind to side effects, and the CDC wasn't even looking. There was a savior in the ranks of the FDA who correctly identified the problem, appropriately collaborated with the inventor of EB data mining to create a solution, and communicated the solution to anyone who would listen. The problem is that no one listened. Luck was not on our side.
The CDC has failed to look. The FDA has failed to fix a flawed system that the CDC touted as the gold standard. HHS has failed to protect us, especially after our freedom of choice was attacked by the President who threatened us all as our patience runs out. The circumvention of the FOIA was well practiced and discovered, of course not through a FOIA. Simply put, during the largest pharmaceutical rollout in human history, pharmacovigilance was non-existent.
That is the betrayal of our time, so great that we cannot even count the victims.
Cover up illness
One of my fundamental beliefs is that humanity has experienced a tremendous decline in vitality over the past 250 years as:
- Many of my mentors report that from the beginning of their careers to the end, patients became sicker and less responsive to the therapies that previously worked for them.
- In veel gevallen ontdekten zij dat zowel collega's als hun eigen mentoren deze observaties deelden, en in enkele gevallen bevestigden hun mentoren dat zij een soortgelijke reactie hadden gekregen van de mensen die hen hadden opgeleid.
- In confirmation of this, I found numerous medical texts, beginning in the early 19th century, showing that new degenerative diseases had begun to emerge and providing detailed examples of treatments being applied with a much higher degree of effectiveness than I observe in the present.
- Many data sets show that chronic diseases have steadily increased over time.
While one of the insidious aspects of this decline is that it is never talked about (while medical education focuses on the “Dark Ages when infectious diseases were miraculously defeated by vaccines”), it is very difficult for doctors to recognize that this broader trend has occurred. As a result, each new generation of physicians becomes accustomed to the current state of the disease, and unless they live in a time when there is a huge and permanent spike in illness, they are rarely aware of what has happened.
That's why we've put a lot of thought into what's actually causing this massive decline in human vitality, identified about 10 key factors, and believe that one of the most influential of them is widespread vaccination (for example, the permanent peaks in disease tend to coincide with the introduction of particularly dangerous vaccines, starting with the original smallpox vaccines and most recently with the COVID-19 vaccines).
Manipulate data
Over the years I've heard many different definitions of intelligence, including a person's ability to manipulate logical symbols to achieve a desired outcome. In turn, many facets of human society ultimately come down to competing parties trying to rearrange the existing situation to their advantage (for example: rhetoric is essentially the ability to use words to influence people).
Een van de bijzonder ongelukkige aspecten van de wetenschap is dat, hoewel deze begon als een instrument waarop degenen die op zoek waren naar de waarheid vertrouwden om dat doel te bevorderen, zodra dit resultaten en sociaal kapitaal begon op te leveren, de gewetenloze leden van de samenleving de wetenschap grepen om hun eigen agenda's te bevorderen en nauwkeurigheid niet langer voorop stelden.
Because of this, much “science,” like rhetoric, is little more than an exercise in rearranging the acquired data (or the way the data is acquired) until it can be put into a configuration that credibly supports your message. Interpreting scientific literature has therefore become something of an art, as you need a complex set of instruments to distinguish fact from fictional fiction.
Vaccinmaskering
Vaccines have dose-dependent toxicity, so the more you take, you are more likely to develop chronic neurological or autoimmune diseases. Since the vaccine industry, like many others, is perpetually focused on growth (and enjoys very unique protections from the federal government), there is an ongoing trend to give people more and more vaccines.
This in turn has led to a continued increase in chronic diseases (sometimes starting immediately after vaccination), which become increasingly difficult to cover up as they become more common. To address this, the vaccine industry has used increasingly aggressive methods to censor those lesions so that people don't associate them with vaccinations, and those who do are widely ridiculed by those around them. For example, this is why:
- Medical journals used to publish case reports of serious vaccine injury (of which there were many here are summarized), but never do that anymore.
- Televisiezenders zonden vroeger regelmatig programma's uit over mensen wier leven door vaccins was verwoest (waarvan ik er 56 here collected), but now never do so due to Clinton-era regulatory changes that allow pharmaceutical advertising to buy up the media (which RFK is currently trying to reverse).
- So much work has gone into making it socially acceptable to demonize anyone who questions vaccines and thus stifle any discussion on the subject.
- Tech platforms have (until recently) aggressively censored content critical of vaccination.
Likewise, all sorts of absurd epistemological frameworks have been set up to sanctify the idea that vaccines are completely safe and won't hurt you.
Aaron Siri, for example, emphasized in his book about the religion of vaccines (Vaccines Amen) that all of vaccine science is based on the idea that vaccines are completely safe and effective, so that any evidence supporting it, no matter how weak, is taken as true, while any evidence refuting it, no matter how robust, is generally ignored.
Dit heeft er op zijn beurt toe geleid dat er binnen klinische vaccinonderzoeken een nogal opmerkelijke norm is geaccepteerd, waarbij vaccins niet tegen placebo's worden getest, maar tegen andere vaccins, en alleen als gevaarlijk worden beschouwd als hun schadelijkheidspercentage aanzienlijk hoger is dan dat van het andere vaccin. Hierdoor is het mogelijk om vaccinonderzoeken aan elkaar te ‘koppelen’, waarbij steeds giftigere vaccins als ‘veilig’ worden beschouwd (aangezien ze slechts iets schadelijker zijn dan het vaccin dat er direct aan voorafging en waartegen het nieuwere vaccin werd getest).
Note: The justification for this experimental design is that “vaccines are so safe, effective, and lifesaving that it is unethical to withhold vaccines from children in trials, so instead of a placebo they should receive the previous 'safe' vaccine.” Apart from the fact that this is absurd (since it is much more unethical to inject every child with an untested vaccine), in many cases the vaccine 'placebo' is a completely different vaccine (which completely defeats the logic of that argument).
One of the most insidious aspects of this framework is that it effectively hides the continued increase in chronic diseases, as it coincides with increasing vaccine side effects being considered “normal” and not deviating from baseline (while they clearly are if the vaccines were compared to an actual placebo).
Note: Predictably, most of the basic studies needed to establish the safety of vaccines, especially if several are done at the same time, are never done because they are “unethical.” ” Conversely, when the studies that can be conducted are conducted anyway (retrospective or observational), they all demonstrate that vaccines cause a massive increase in disease (usually a 2.5 to 9 fold increase), but are always pushed aside because no placebos were used (which can never be done 'ethically').
Interestingly, there is a very similar safeguard built into federal vaccine safety monitoring.
Specifically, the CDC uses the Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) to help identify potential safety signals in VAERS data (which only exist because a law forced the government to make a public reporting system available).
The PRR compares the proportion of a specific adverse event reported for a particular vaccine with the proportion of that same adverse event reported for all other vaccines in the database, to determine whether that adverse event is disproportionately more common with the vaccine in question. The FDA also uses a similar disproportionality analysis, using additional statistical measures that reject certain associations that the PRR would identify.
While this approach can detect quite unique side effects associated with a specific vaccine, it has major blind spots:
- Due to the top half of the formula, it has difficulty identifying individual side effects for vaccines that cause a high overall rate of side effects. If almost every side effect for that vaccine is elevated, none stands out proportionately compared to the other reported side effects of the vaccine itself.
- Because of the lower half of the formula, it cannot easily detect side effects common to many different vaccines (e.g. certain neurological, autoimmune, or cardiac events) because those events are also increased in the comparison group, making the vaccine in question look less unusual.
- Furthermore (because of the bottom half) when two or more similar vaccines come to market at the same time and both have much higher rates of side effects than older vaccines, the PRR is heavily masked by the “all other vaccines” baseline being swamped by reports of the other new vaccine(s), so that neither stands out as disproportionate.
When I heard about the PRR, I immediately noticed how well designed it was to hide the ever-increasing damage from vaccination, since damage would always be assessed against a previous (already increased) baseline and increases large enough to trigger a signal were so difficult to achieve that they would rarely, if ever, occur. Even more remarkably, this system also provided the magic solution to getting an incredibly toxic vaccine to market, provided at least two different ones were released at the same time.
So it was that seven weeks after the first COVID-19 vaccines received Emergency Use Authorization, and as VAERS began receiving a wave of adverse event reports, the CDC its VAERS Standard Operating Procedures for COVID-19 released. In that document, the agency formally designated the Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) as one of its primary tools for the routine detection of safety signals, stating that it would conduct PRR data mining on a weekly or as-needed basis (something I'm almost certain was done, as it was the only way to hide the massive vaccine injury signal).
Note: Despite this, the CDC eventually even stopped doing this (while it made numerous false statements about what it had done) and ultimately left the analysis to the FDA's "more robust system."
So the net result of this approach was that these types of things “weren't signals” because they were compared to other massively elevated baselines.
Szarfman, in turn, came up with a fairly obvious solution to this problem: instead of comparing an mRNA vaccine with all the other vaccines plus the other mRNA vaccine, you don't include the other mRNA vaccine in the comparison (red versus blue instead of red versus red plus blue). While this was incredibly obvious, it was unacceptable as it exposed critical issues with the COVID vaccine that the existing approach masked (and in fact we only found out about them thanks to Johnson's lengthy research).
One in a million
Since vaccine injury is common and unavoidable, the medical industry's solution was to reframe it as “very rare” so that people do not become alarmed by the harm they encounter, and at one point the phrase “that harm is one in a million” was chosen (which may be derived from the encephalitis rate with the smallpox vaccine — somewhere between 7 and 1,444 per million vaccinees), in addition to reassuring that there is strong support for those one in a million who are injured increases.
As a result, there is a schizophrenic dichotomy in vaccine damage, in which:
- Common but relatively minor side effects are disclosed (e.g. pain at the injection site or being sick for a few days), then concerns about them are dismissed by emphasizing the minor nature of the side effect.
- The serious and life-changing side effects that affect large numbers of people are ruthlessly denied.
- The extremely rare side effects unique to specific vaccines are highlighted, and in some cases this leads to the vaccine being withdrawn from the market if an alternative is available (for example, this happened with one rotavirus vaccine).
This therefore allows for the illusion of robust vaccine safety to be created, as people will assume that if regulators are strict enough to tackle extremely rare cases, they will surely tackle common cases as well (which is further reinforced by the focus on inconsequential responses). That, in my opinion, is also why:
- The injury detection system used in VAERS (PRR) can only detect unique and rare injuries, while the common injuries that everyone worries about with vaccinations (category 2) are essentially never identified by the system.
- Monitoring systems such as V-safe, which were designed to detect Category 2 injuries, by the FDA and CDC were phased out once they realized it was detecting large numbers of Category 2 injuries.
- The NIH was initially very interested in providing support to individuals like Brianne Dressen who suffered severe neurological injuries from the vaccines (and even provided a costly treatment that worked somewhat), but when they realized her injury was not "rare" they decided to ignore her and block publication of the studies she had participated in (since a very rare side effect that they could address would increase confidence in vaccination, while acknowledging a common side effect would decrease confidence and exceed their budget to cover every case treatment).
- The FDA made made a big deal of temporarily suspending the J&J vaccine due to some cases of a very rare blood clot (cerebral venous sinus thrombosis), while ignoring the much more common risk of blood clots with the mRNA vaccines.
Conclusion
Over the centuries, many have concluded that one of the biggest mistakes humans make is to believe that they can hijack and dominate natural processes, rather than recognizing that their influence on them will be temporary at best, causing significant stress (e.g., most pharmaceutical drugs work by artificially shifting the body's baseline enzyme levels, something that often induces resistance to the drugs and amplifies side effects as the body deviates further and further from its baseline) .
However, a major reason why I believe in the “law of equilibrium” is because in cases where this law does not appear to be followed on a larger scale (for example, during a positive feedback loop, or when the expected negative feedback loop does not materialize), it actually does, and the expected changes occur anyway.
Therefore, in cases where it appears that humans have successfully suppressed a natural equilibrium, a broader feedback loop will eventually take over. With vaccines, for example, we've seen a 250-year cycle of escalating ever more powerful methods to force vaccines on an increasingly resistant public (which has been incredibly depressing to watch, as I've lost count of how many people I know whose lives were destroyed by vaccines and then manipulated by everyone around them because the majority of people couldn't imagine these injuries could even occur).
While propaganda has an incredible ability to sweep things under the rug, it has limits, and due to the sheer number of people harmed by the COVID vaccines (e.g. polls consistently demonstrate that 12-20% of those vaccinated have suffered damage; often serious), it has become impossible to cover this up (e.g. 49–55% now believes the vaccines have caused significant unexplained deaths). Moreover, there has been a much broader loss of confidence in vaccines, the medical system and health authorities that overshadows everything in the history of medicine (all of which I here heb beschreven). Bedenk bijvoorbeeld hoe vernietigend Hawley's taalgebruik was tegenover de farmaceutische industrie; we hebben nog nooit eerder dergelijke uitspraken gehoord en ze worden alleen gedaan (vóór de tussentijdse verkiezingen) omdat een groot deel van het electoraat erachter staat. Het tij lijkt eindelijk te keren – niet omdat de waarheid is veranderd, maar omdat deze uiteindelijk te groot werd om te verbergen.
I have good news and bad news.
Bad news first: discussions like the above have been had before, since the first vaccination (Jenner's cowpox vaccination) somewhere (off the top of my head) in the early 19th century. These discussions have not settled the fate of the vaccine (in terms of giving up vaccination). Perhaps the problem is that a person lives at most 80-100 years and that the worst kind of pandemics (covid, Spanish flu, smallpox or in the time before that [although ten of them have no vaccine, but quarantine/exclusion, etc.) the plague happen over a period of 80-100 years. It's as if the wheel (do you have to vaccinate to get out of a pandemic) has to be reinvented every time over generations. Seen in this way, it seems very likely to me that in 80-100 years the alchemical cookbook: how to conjure up a pandemic will be taken off the shelf again and will once again have the world in its (strangle) grip. That's the bad news.
The good news is, the opponents of the vaccine can still be found and their opposition reads as if they are talking about today. One such opponent was Jesus (who was not afraid of the lepers) another opponent was the Netherlands' greatest writer (don't let him hear it) Douwes Dekker/ Multatuli
I don't have his book (from 1871) at hand (I'm writing this outside in the sun), but what is elaborated above was also elaborated in 1871 by Douwes Dekker in his 1001-only specialties, where he mocks the experts of his time.
AI (what a useful medium, but nothing beats reading the book yourself...) says the following about this book:
One Thousand and One Chapters on Specialties is an influential essay by Multatuli (Eduard Douwes Dekker) from 1871, in which he mocks the claim that only “experts” (specialties) understand social and political matters.
In this work he uses the cowpox vaccination (the vaccine) as a central example to attack the ignorance and arrogance of the ruling class and “experts”:
* Criticism of the legislature: Multatuli strongly protests against the coercive measures surrounding vaccination. He argues that the government does not have the capacity to make such medical decisions for the people.
* The “Vaccine Argument”: He argues that if a vaccine is truly effective, the vaccinated person is protected and the unvaccinated person therefore poses no danger to the other person. According to him, the coercion is therefore not based on logic, but on abuse of power.
Would you like to further investigate the specific text passage about cowpox vaccination in this work?
Yes
Although the exact passage is spread over several pages (mainly in chapters CCLXIII onwards), this is the most typical line of reasoning he uses:
"If the vaccination is a contraceptive, it protects the person who has been vaccinated. So the non-vaccinated person cannot infect him. Why then do we force the non-vaccinated person to have the operation? Is it to protect himself? Well, that is his business. The State has no right to force someone to be healthy."
Main arguments in the text
In the full text on DBNL he further develops this theme based on these points:
* Freedom of the individual: He states that the government may not interfere with the body of the citizen under the guise of "general interest" if that interest cannot be logically demonstrated.
* The fallibility of experts: He ridicules doctors who act as “specialties” but do not take into account individual will.
* The right to illness: Multatuli even goes so far as to state that the right to become ill or to take a risk lies with the citizen himself, not with the legislator. [1, 2, 3]
Context in the work
In the book, this example of the vaccine serves as an illustration of his broader aversion to “specialistism”: the tendency of people who are experts in one field to think that they therefore also have the moral or political right to decide about the lives of others. [1]
What a seer he was. Let's hope it's more widely distributed now than it was then.
I thought this could use a deeper but easy to understand explanation...... It has also been published by Maurice. https://maurice.nl/2026/05/01/het-verdoezelen-van-de-gevaren-van-de-covid-vaccinatie/
This is a very complex study in which statistics and safety policy collide. I didn't understand it at all at first...
I think some explanation is needed to indicate whether this is a hoax or a serious investigation. So it is very serious
Below is a factual explanation in which we confront the complex mathematical statistical method with absolute numbers. And show how scientists have really made a mess of Science. If it wasn't so tragic, it would be very humorous...
1. Summary: The FDA's Statistical Blindness
1.1. The core of the controversy surrounding Dr. Rita Ouellet-Hellstrom is that the American regulator (FDA) used a method (PRR) that was unsuitable for a vaccine with extremely many reports of mild side effects.
1.1.1. While the absolute numbers of serious incidents in young people (12–24 years) in the VAERS database exceeded the normal background mortality by a factor of 50 to 100, the computer did not give a “red light”.
1.1.2. This was because the hundreds of serious cases were "masked" by hundreds of thousands of reports of mild complaints such as fever. Ouellet-Hellstrom proved that by filtering out this “noise”, 87% of the hidden safety signals still became visible.
2. The Method: How PRR Normally Works (and Why It Failed Here)
2.1. The Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) compares the ratio of a specific side effect between two groups.
2.1.1. Suppose that 1 in 100 reports of the flu shot concerns heart inflammation. If this is 2 in 100 for the COVID vaccine, then the PRR is 2.0. The FDA only raises the alarm when the value is above 2.0.
2.1.2. The mistake: People also reported mild complaints en masse with the COVID vaccines. If you have 800 heart infections, but also 400,000 reports of fever, then the share of heart infections in the database is very small. The PRR therefore remained below 2.0, causing the system to indicate that the vaccine was “safe”, while the absolute number of victims rose alarmingly.
3. Absolute figures: VAERS versus reality (Expected)
3.1. For the crucial group of young men (12–24 years old), the figures from the period December 2020 to April 2021 can be explained as follows:
3.1.1. The signal (VAERS): During this period, hundreds of reports were made for myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) alone (approximately 618 for all ages at that time, heavily concentrated in young people).
3.1.2. The baseline measurement (Background incidence): According to historical data (comparable to Statistics Netherlands), the natural risk of myocarditis in this young group is approximately 1 in 100,000 per year. In a group this size, you would expect only 10 to 15 cases in four months.
3.1.3. The conclusion: The number of reports in VAERS was therefore 40 to 60 times higher than what would be "normal" in hospital admissions for this condition. Because VAERS is a passive system (underreporting), the actual number is probably considerably higher.
4. Rita Ouellet-Hellstrom's intervention
4.1. dr. Ouellet-Hellstrom applied the "unmasking method".
4.1.1. She removed the top 10 mild side effects (the “little side effects” such as a stiff arm) from the dataset. Without this noise, the PRR of serious conditions such as myocarditis and pulmonary emboli immediately rose well above the alarm limit of 2.0.
4.1.2. Consequences for 12–24 years: For this group, the vaccine was safe according to official statistics (because of the masking), but clearly unsafe according to its analysis. The benefits (protection against a mild virus for them) did not outweigh the proven additional incidence of heart damage.
4.1.3. Consequences for 60+: In the 60+ category, the natural background noise (people who will develop heart problems anyway) is much higher. This makes it more difficult to prove that an incident was caused by the vaccine. Ouellet-Hellstrom drew the line at the group where the signal was indisputable: the youth and young adults.
5. Scientific accountability
5.1. Ouellet-Hellstrom's findings show that in this case “Science” blindly relied on an instrument that was not calibrated for a situation with extreme willingness to report. Ignoring absolute numbers in favor of a ratio led to a false sense of security.
Bronvermelding :
Ouellet-Hellstrom, R., et al. (2022). Unmasking of safety signals in voluntary reporting databases: A case study of COVID-19 vaccines. Drug Safety, 45(6), 567-578.
U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. (2024). The FDA’s Oversight of COVID-19 Vaccine Safety: Examining the PRR Analysis and Masking Effects. Minority Staff Report.
It is inevitable that we have ended up close to an article on the front page of the Volkskrant with our message about the corona tragedy. Maarten Keulemans is well on his way. On x we sifted through the data about the influence of migration on our living environment (listen to Marianne and Maurice from last night if you are not active on x). In any case, listen because Maarten Keulemans will not have an easy time with P Klok (Framed Marianne) and with that he can show us his often emphasized independence. And also an article in Maarten's Volkskrant about climate hysteria. He reports that the IPCC throws a lot of people and articles under the bus. Would the time have really come? I hope so! Of course it is not only in Maarten's hands, that would make him far too important. It can provide some connection again. As Maurice said “we live in two worlds”…
I hope that his climate rant is an exercise in what is to come regarding corona policy, including the risks that have been accepted with vaccinations. He gets a real beating on bluesky. He can't do well anywhere, right? I can put myself in his position better and better.
Corona started by building 'herd immunity' (through infection) and it ended with a 'pandemic of the unvaccinated'. Apologies for the banal response; but it is/was that simple, right?
As an aside, a vaccine is always welcome; is actually welcome. Provided it works.
Greetings,
Teun
“Since the beginning of vaccination, authorities have systematically turned to unsafe and ineffective vaccines, regardless of resistance or evidence to the contrary.”
I would simply argue that that move towards vaccines was already a step towards unsafe and ineffective. And that the lie had been going on for a long time after that change.
Since then we have only had to deal with missionaries (in the mediacracy).
The only thing I have learned from corona is that people have each other's best interests at heart. Not wanting to harm each other. Even though we have all done evil in our lives. And I think that's the most positive thing about everything. Moving even.
It is not in the Bible, but the saying 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions' has been proven. However, the reason for going that route was steered and consciously abused.
That's how I learned as a teenager by watching TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwiSp28xmOc
“Not wanting to harm each other.”…? That is not sustainable, given the withheld alarm signals. A deliberate decision was then made to puncture and harm people. Without consultation, it was decided that if there were slightly fewer than would be saved, then it was OK. Or something like that, even that is unclear, we are not allowed to know.
Does that really fit with “not wanting to harm each other”?
It's the Rule of Rescue, who shows time and time again that not everyone can handle the position of power assigned to him/her. This is about sacrificing healthy people for the benefit of the weak. This is described as “evil”, see for example the parallel with elites drinking baby blood. That is the most reprehensible image you can imagine – and that is what was explicitly chosen.
I think you overestimate the intelligence and underestimate the moral component. In my opinion, administrators/scientists did not do this on purpose. And let alone that this is centrally controlled by WEF or the like.
The government and the public wanted to get rid of the lock downs quickly. So: prick.
Because this pricking was so important, standard tunnel thinking emerged, which suppressed negative signals.
And once that has started, the reputation is so crucial that one cannot go back from the path it has taken.
That's how banal it works in my opinion. Very often. Stupidity/short-sightedness/thoughtlessness of administrators, the public and the media. And this plays out in the same way in almost all countries with more or less the same culture.
I certainly don't overestimate their intelligence and the moral component. I actually hope that I underestimate it, because I have a very low opinion of it.
They did it on purpose, indeed “because pricking was so important”. That is a rational decision. That is undeniable. I understand the tendency to deny that, but there is nothing to indicate this except the assumption (only about my person) that I would underestimate something.
They also didn't want to “get rid of lockdowns quickly” – how do you know that? Well, when those lockdowns turned out not to work because there was no change in the decrease in R, they were continued and used again.
Even the Omikron lockdown took place, I believe, as the only country in Europe, while we already knew from naive regions that Omikron was not a particularly serious flu. From that I would rather conclude that our power bloc loved lockdowns! Just as fond as they were of ineffective face masks that they could make everyone put on.
At least then you're doing something visible!
All joking aside: It is documented:
– how risks have been deliberately woven away
– how alarm signals have been swept under the carpet
– how safety boundaries have been pushed
– how definitions are changed
– how the situation was presented differently from the reality they knew (or should have known, but which they had no insight into because of the chaos they themselves had made of it.)
– how government censorship has been used to keep the real situation from coming to light
– how counter-science has been deliberately cancelled
– how the media has gaslighted and instilled fear in public opinion (not by accident!)
– how safety routes have been cut off
I could go on like this for a while.
That is not an underestimation or overestimation on my part, as is evident from observation, analysis of scientific counter-expertise and WOO documents.
I certainly believe that this happened on the basis of deception. If you do not properly inform yourself in such a position of power, it is very easy to take such a wrong position. That too is a choice. If you don't think that's blameworthy, I think it should be anyway.
N.B.: You introduce the WEF, which takes this topic into a different domain. Like I said it's a preconceived plan or something like that. I DON'T have that. Please try to make that distinction.
If you want to analyze where the deception comes from, the WEF is certainly one of the candidates; as far as I am concerned, the materialization of tunnel thinking. There, elitist misconceptions are reinforced by mutual confirmation.
If you are in a position of power, you should protect yourself against this, especially if you have intelligence and a moral component.
I really don't agree with you. Above all, they are very stupid. Unfortunately, you also see this in many other files. How can you waste €35 billion to cancel out 0.000037 degrees of warming? Then you are just very, very, very stupid.
It's really bad that we have so much stupidity in our government. But that doesn't make those people "bad" in terms of character. Of course, it is poorly suited for those functions.
They also didn't want to “get rid of lockdowns quickly” – how do you know that? Well, when those lockdowns turned out not to work because there was no change in the decrease in R, they were continued and used again. = Stupidity
Even the Omikron lockdown took place, I believe, as the only country in Europe, while we already knew from naive regions that Omikron was not a particularly serious flu. From that I would rather conclude that our power bloc loved lockdowns! Just as fond as they were of ineffective face masks that they could make everyone put on. = Stupidity
At least then you're doing something visible! = Reputation protection
All joking aside: It is documented:
– how risks are deliberately woven away = Stupidity
– how red flags have been swept under the carpet = Stupidity
– how safety boundaries have been pushed = Stupidity
– how definitions are changed = Stupidity
– how the situation was presented differently from the reality they knew (or should have known, but which they had no insight into because of the chaos they themselves had made of it.) = Stupidity
– how government censorship has been used to keep the real situation from coming to light = Reputation protection
– how counter-science has been deliberately canceled = Stupidity + Reputation protection
– how the media has gaslighted and instilled fear in public opinion (not by accident!) = Reputation protection
– how safety routes have been cut off = Stupidity
Hello Jan, as you may know, I have worked with Maurice from the beginning of the whole covid story. Maurice also initially thought that much of what happened was mainly the result of incompetence or administrative chaos, and perhaps he still partly thinks so. After the accumulation of policy choices and contradictions, I have started to look at this differently.
What struck me most is that many of the so-called “stupid mistakes” ultimately seem to support a certain policy direction or agenda. That makes it difficult to see everything solely as incompetence. In my opinion, at many crucial moments there was hardly any open scientific assessment on which transparent policy was made.
Take the laboratory debate, for example. For years, attempts have been made to keep the possibility of a laboratory origin of an airborne virus off the table, while it is now more widely recognized that this scenario should at least have been seriously investigated. That laboratory did not have the authority to work on these types of viruses. That does not feel like pure stupidity, but rather as damage limitation surrounding research that was politically and scientifically sensitive.
The speed with which vaccines were available also raises questions, although this can partly be explained by the fact that the mRNA technology used to produce a vaccine in GOF experiments had already been in development for some time. No stupidity. At the same time, the crisis was used to accelerate the introduction of all kinds of social and digital structures, such as corona admission tickets and 2G/3G systems. These are choices that go beyond just public health and also touch on governance and social control through, for example, a digital passport.
I'm not going to refute all of your points individually, but there are a few things where I think you might view the background differently. As you may know, the OMT formally played an advisory role, while in crisis situations agencies such as the AIVD and the NCTV are also involved in broader crisis coordination. That makes decision-making more complex than just “the virologists decided everything”.
Also take the face masks. Jaap van Dissel initially indicated that face masks would have limited effectiveness for general use, after which the communication later changed. Released WOB documents showed that influencing behavior and public compliance also played a role. This fuels the feeling among many people that communication was not always exclusively focused on transparency. Not stupid, but agenda.
The same applies to the vaccination strategy. The accelerated admission, dealing with side effects and the way in which risks were publicly discussed remain points of discussion for many people. And then, being Pfizer, all reports showing that they cheated the whole thing are put in a safe for 70 years. The contracts and negotiations of parties such as Pfizer and the role of Ursula von der Leyen, from which a lot of money was made, have also further fueled that discussion.
And to be honest, I see the same pattern in other dossiers, such as nitrogen and climate policy. Here too, measures are sometimes presented as inevitable and a “crisis situation” is used, while the underlying assumptions and feasibility are even unfeasible. Sorry but I could go on about this all day. This gives many people the feeling that certain political directions have already been determined, such as reducing the number of farmers in the Netherlands and moving food supply abroad, before the public/scientific conversation has really been had.
I completely understand you and can completely follow everything in terms of facts. I just draw slightly different conclusions from it, which in my opinion are more logical and therefore more plausible. I know of ideas, including those of Rudolf Steiner, about secret societies making plans for the world. In the past, that image was still somewhat tenable: you had a few kings, a handful of large industrialists; a limited number of people who could write history directly.
But that time is over. The world is now far too complex for such a hierarchical model. What we see now is not a 'secret society' with one conductor, but a gigantic, diffuse network of 'policy tables'. Think of the WEF, NATO, ministries, the House of Representatives, think tanks, local councils, and large corporate councils – they are all cogs in a confusing system. No one sees the whole thing anymore. Power is no longer concentrated in one person, but is 'in the structure' of all those networks together.
People like Lisa Westerveld or Segers are not 'controlled' by an evil genius; they are simply part of a system in which their career, their ideology and their fear of falling outside the group force them to act in a certain way. They also dutifully participated in all that Corona nonsense. Why?
a. people who had/have power were not morally wrong in advance. They wanted to “save”.
b. people with power in politics generally have a relatively large ego, not the highest IQ, little self-reflection and almost all of them are in the tunnel of their party's ideas. Especially on the left, there is also a very strong ideological motivation that is completely irrational.
c. because out of ignorance + stupidity + not listening to criticism + Rule of Rescue thinking, almost all of them took the wrong turn in the beginning (with the exception of Sweden and about 4 or 5 states in the US), things went completely wrong with Corona.
d. A path once taken cannot be corrected. Politicians know “better half way, ....”, but cannot live up to it. That is a combination of ego and alleged damage to image.
e. the industry, as always, has tried to take advantage of the opportunity, including petty thief Sywert. And everything is done to achieve this: lobbying, misinformation, sweeping unwelcome research information under the table, lucrative contracts without liability, etc. etc. That has been the case for at least 100 years.
f. some politicians are well “connected” in the industry; that does not help in making rational optimal decisions (let me put it nicely...).
g. Unfortunately, scientists are often not really intelligent people with common sense; but often autistics with a micro-focus. And they are generally above all, very risk-averse and certainly not courageous. They are highly dependent on contract funding (project subsidies). So definitely no whistleblowers. And certainly not against the government, which finances a lot of contract funding. In addition, they are locked in a bubble/paradigm. See T.S. Kuhn. This is consistent with Maurice's observation that many scientists behind the scenes agree with him, but never go public.
h. All this explains the very active RIVM behavior unit (including counterparts at ministries) to intensively implement damage control or ensure "good communication". The number of government communications advisors has exploded in recent years.
i. The OVV has already pointed out very precisely that the role of OMT and Cabinet has been completely incorrect. The MCCb should have had much more influence. Even the OVV believes that a very one-sided policy has been pursued. Unfortunately, the OVV did not filter the content of the decisions, as they always do in the case of plane crashes. In that sense, the OVV is not really independent and has largely spared no expense. Just as I suspect the Corona parliamentary inquiry committee will do.
And with these factors (and undoubtedly some others forgotten), the disastrous whole can easily be explained. I don't need a master plan, great reset, control ideals, WEF, Bill Gates etc. etc. for this. It is a combination of stupidity, self-interest and ideology that sends politicians in the wrong direction.
I get your point about 'dammage control', Jilles. They are indeed very cunning when it comes to saving their own skin. But I think we encounter a fundamental difference in analysis here. You look for a 'Who' (a steering body), while I think that the real power nowadays lies with the 'What': the structure of the system itself.
I sincerely do not believe in a powerful forum pulling the strings. If I'm honest, I don't see the evidence for that anywhere. If there really was such a brilliant, evil master plan, why is its execution so often amateurish? Why are WOB documents constantly leaking out showing that they had no idea what they were doing and that they were mainly improvising in panic? A truly powerful body would erase those tracks much better.
I think there is something much scarier going on than a conspiracy: we have built an über-complex technocratic system that is now flying on autopilot. These politicians are not grandmasters, but prisoners in this infrastructure. They are trapped in a system of interests, protocols and international treaties from which they simply cannot leave without blowing up their own political careers.
That is not a 'secret agenda', that is system coercion. Once you have the infrastructure for (digital) control/control, it will be used. For example, despite the GDPR, route checks are now being carried out and more than 10,000 people are working at banks every day to check money laundering. The police, DUO, UWV and Tax Authorities use algorithms for profiling. This infrastructure will soon also be perfectly usable to manage an individual CO2 budget if the current ideological CO2 confusion continues. Not because some evil genius or forum is pushing a button in a back room somewhere, but because that's just how the system is set up.
It's a natural convergence of interests: once you build a highway, it's inevitable that cars will start moving. You don't need a master plan for that, just a system that sustains itself. The musicians all play from the same score for fear of falling out of tune and no longer being able to pay their sky-high mortgage. It is an economic-technocratic juggernaut that feeds itself. And that, if you think about it carefully, is perhaps much more worrying than a conspiracy: there is no one at the wheel, but we are all hurtling towards the abyss.
And exactly the same applies to topics such as immigration, nitrogen, CO2/energy, housing, etc. etc. A combination of stupidity and ideology sends politicians in the wrong direction within the current social infrastructure. And a large minority, who unfortunately do not have everything straight but are closer to The Truth on some files, are excluded from the policy. And if they can make policy, they mess it up and are thwarted en masse by civil servants and judges.
I think this corresponds well with Maurice's analysis. People who still have common sense look at the government as a cabinet of curiosities completely disconnected from reality. Not based on a grand master plan, or international elites sending something somewhere. But simply on the basis of ideological confusion and a total lack of common sense, self-reflection and critical ability. And no one in power knows the way out. A number of “philosophers” (Maurice, Ad Verbrugge) view this with dismay. And see things go wrong.
That is why I do not believe in a central/overarching guiding power.
I hope you can follow this?
Jan, denk jij dat er op geen enkel moment een centraal sturende macht is geweest? Veiligheidsdiensten met internationaal overleg bijvoorbeeld, die stonden er helemaal buiten?
Nee en ja. Zij stuurden natuurlijk mee in het grote complexe netwerk.
Maar zij waren m.i. echt niet alles- en/of alleen-bepalend.
Net als de WEF. Daar werden/worden ideeën uitgewisseld door belangrijke mensen met macht. Dat heeft invloed. Maar niet de doorslaggevende sturing van alles. Ik vermoed dat de WHO meer invloed had op wat er gebeurde. In NL had het OMT heel erg veel invloed. Vandaar die idiote lock down eind 2021, die verder niemand had. Dat duidt ook op GEEN centrale sturing, maar dommigheid op lokaal niveau met invloed van (ook internationale) netwerken. Maar geen harde sturing.
Het zou interessant zijn om hier een compleet schema van te maken a.d.h.v. de vele WOB openbaringen. Ik zie daarin veel van dit netwerk terug.
Het gaat om het complete netwerk van actoren en de beloningen en kosten die je gedrag daarvan als individu (politicus, wetenschapper, journalist, burger) ondervindt.
Het is best een complex samenspel. Maar omdat in de ontwikkelde wereld veel systemen op elkaar lijken is het logisch dat uitkomsten van processen ook vaak op elkaar lijken. je ziet dat nu ook in de opkomst van “extreem rechts”, m.i. een reactie op de hoogopgeleide globalistische elites in alle landen. Ook dat wordt niet centraal aangestuurd. Maar het gebeurt wel overal in Europa. Zelfs in de UK!
Interessant en mooi dat jouw website dit soort discussies (met deels gelijk gestemden, maar deels ook totaal niet) mogelijk maakt en mij daarin ook verder helpt……
Zo was mijn vraag ook bedoeld. Je bevecht namelijk een standpunt dat ik niemand (behalve teun denk ik, die moet ik nog contacten) hier zie innemen. Ikzelf al helemáál niet – terwijl je mij er wel op hebt aangesproken.
Het kan zijn dat we het woord ‘complot’ eens strak moeten definiëren want dat wordt te pas en te onpas in de strijd geworpen, ook voor reactieve gedragingen – en daar gaat het al fout wat mij betreft. Strikt genomen hoeft een complot niet eens kwaadaardig te zijn. Niet elke gecoördineerde actie is een complot. Moet je samenkomen en overleggen voor een complot? Ook niet, kijk naar het Sinterklaasfeest. Je moet in elk geval de conventies kennen.
Er is voor mij één noodzakelijke kenmerk: Een complot moet iets in het leven roepen, initiëren. Welk narratief is complottesk?
Dan volgt de vraag: diende het het algemeen belang of werd er samengespannen ten koste van iemand anders?
Ik vind de zoönose-leugen bijvoorbeeld een duidelijk complot. Maar wat het moest verhullen, het geheime, illegale onderzoek, is dat een complot? Misschien was dat ter bescherming van de bevolking. Maar misschien was het om de wereldheerschappij te bestendigen (en tzt ongetwijfeld anderen mee uit te roeien). Waarbij je weer stuit op de goede bedoelingen waarmee al heel wat wegen naar de hel zijn geplaveid…
Tot hoe ver reikt het complot? Hoe onderscheid je degenen die er bewust aan meewerken van degenen die er argeloos in trappen?
Ik heb hier wel eens een aanzet voor een artikel over geschreven. Ik kwam er zelf ook niet goed uit. Meer vragen dan antwoorden.
No, it wasn't that simple, unless of course you don't want to look any further. As you say yourself: with a banal look everything is simple.
But it hasn't even ended yet...
And what does “Provided it works” mean? I suspect: That diseases are prevented and no one suffers from them. But how do you know that is the case? in other words: how do you measure that?
"That is not sustainable, given the withheld alarm signals. A deliberate decision was made to pierce and harm people."
That's why I mentioned my prejudice on day 1 of corona Anton (see my first response on your website). So indeed; that it is deliberate.
I think we misunderstood each other.
Your responses show that you have now come to the same conclusion.
I called my response banal for that reason.
I'm just looking further, Anton, I want to waste a lot of time on that, but I think that would lead to even more miscommunication.
The only thing I would add is that there is an esoteric component to all of this that goes back to alchemy and enlightenment, but that has no substantive value to what you demonstrate here. And that would undermine what you are doing here.
” As you say yourself: with a banal look everything is simple.
But it hasn't even ended yet…”
So that's why I wrote what I wrote. We're talking about the same thing. We come to the same conclusion by other means. However, your path is precisely the demonstrable path; the only obvious way.
I will no longer respond to articles, in my opinion it sows confusion and leads to conversations that are not relevant to your work.
Greetings,
Teun.
In addition, I am not Jan van der Zanden... So I ignore your second response. I've always used the same email.
“And what does “Provided it works” mean? I suspect: That diseases are prevented and no one suffers from them. But how do you know that that is the case? In other words: how do you measure that?”
It means we don't know and we can't measure it. Until it happens. I don't believe in prevention, that's what I keep trying to say. I don't understand how you come to that reaction.
I do believe in treatment.
So “provided it works” means making one immune. And that can only be done afterwards. As far as I know (banal).
Officially my last response, you have my email. Email me if you need to talk about this and you will receive my active email; if you want.
Greetings,
Teun
*swear against myself*
I want to share everything I know, Anton, but after so much intimidation, hacking, etc. before corona, I am no longer eager to share my direct contacts. They can't catch you that easily in that sense. K can only say that Stasi practices are a fact. Isn't that clear?
Not that I have any meaning at all, far from it. I am not a learned man like you. But I know a lot about occultism. An awful lot of people were already talking about what has been happening since corona simply by reading books about what people now call pseudo sciences.
Entire blogs and YouTube etc have been removed in 2016 and even worse in 2018.
The entire public archive was digitized and then suddenly lost… no one gave a shit. 2017.
You can no longer even search by date on the NOS website. They just delete it. Of course, this is what clones are for.
The internet archive has already been emptied in February 2019…
What do you think we're dealing with?
Come on.
First make sure that the stinging stops and that can be done with: undeniable figures (including here through virusvaria) whistleblowers and people where conscience is starting to speak (which we can also read about here on virusvaria. All the other misery and how everything came about is now clearly visible to anyone who wants to see it. Also plenty to look at, listen to and read about (still...) but perhaps it will be stimulating here at virusvaria to also question that if one sees such a response reads, of course in a friendly tone. I have no need for that and am very grateful for what has already been discussed here at virusvaria.
Gisteren hoorde ik in een podcast van univibes Prof. Pierre Capel over het hantavirus en dat het wel heel toevallig is dat alle landen over ongeveer twee weken VOOR de dictatoriale plannen (is mijn mening) van de WHO moeten stemmen. Men GEBRUIKT dus het hantavirus voor propaganda. Het luisteren en kijken zeer de moeite waard. Het komt de agenda om vakanties op cruiseschepen te gaan verbieden (klimaat) ook ten “goede” want dat speelt al veel langer weet ik uit betrouwbare bron. Al heeft men heel wat norovirussen doorstaan tijdens en na deze vakanties net als de Bali-belly maar dat wilde toen niemand horen. Er werd nooit vermeld dat er op menig cruiseschip iemand was overleden of zo ziek dat ze van boord gehaald moesten worden want dat zou geen reclame zijn. Mensen het zijn net mieren in een dodelijke spiraal zoals Anton ook hier al eens een artikel over heeft geschreven.
En jahoor, een cruiseschip in quarantaine vanwege een 90 jarige die is overleden aan een norovirus (nabestaanden gecondoleerd want altijd een verdrietige gebeurtenis maar voor zo’n laatste reis zou ik onmiddellijk tekenen…) In de jaren voor maart 2020 heeft de persoon die ik goed ken deze maatregel nooit meegemaakt in de vele jaren dat deze persoon werkzaam was in de cruisewereld. En bijna elke reis komt het voor op deze schepen en in heel veel landen. Op een cruiseschip is alles aanwezig van ziekenboeg tot mortuarium maar onnodig in quarantaine wil toch niemand. Toch?
Dat is een goeie. Ik vorige week uitgerekend, dat als je als werkgever 500 man personeel hebt die gelijk verdeeld zijn van ca. 25 – 67 jaar, dan gaat er elke jaar gemiddeld 1 dood.
Als je met een boot met 2.000 pensionado’s van allemaal boven de 65 een stuk of 3 maandjes rondvaart, dan gaan er dus heel wat dood………
Van 60 – 70 jaar gaan er 1000 per 100.000 per jaar dood. Dus 10 per 1.000.
Van 70 – 80 jaar zijn het er 3 x zo veel jaar.
Als je er dus 2.000 aan boord hebt, gaan er 20 in een jaar dood, Hantavirus of niet. In een kwartaal, zoals zo’n duur reisje vaak duurt, dus 5. Nou zullen de meest ongezonde mensen wellicht thuis blijven, ok…. Maar er gaan vast ook heel wat 70-tigers mee.
Wat een poeha toch weer allemaal…..
Ook heel ongezonde/zieke mensen gaan op cruiseschepen mee, regelmatig als laatste reis (met familie). Het is geheel verzorgd, personeel enorm behulpzaam, ook op de plekken waar men aanmeert. Onbegrijpelijk dat de cruisewereld niet voor zichzelf is opgekomen en opkomt. Op meer onderwerpen dan alleen virussen… Overheden liegen niet alleen over de c-prikken. De persoon die ik goed ken heeft het zinkende schip moeten verlaten door de leugens over corona maar ondanks het gemis nu opgelucht niet meer betrokken te zijn bij de ondergang van de cruisewereld.
Aha, zou onze D66 overheid zo de CO2 uitstoot willen beperken?????
Er werd al langere tijd gewerkt aan en met groene oplossingen of liever gezegd wat men groen noemt maar dat is geen discussie voor hier. Ondertussen ontmoedigt men alle vormen van vakantie behalve thuisblijven. Nog gekker, het reizen werd ons een tijd ontnomen en vervolgens alleen met voorwaarden toegestaan. Ik ben er helemaal niet gerust op. Het liegen, zelfs openlijk, gaat maar door.
Het CBG heeft zowaar gereageerd en een uitsplitsing van hun inkomsten verstrekt. Ik snap er nog niet veel van, maar het geeft een beeld…. Omzet derden blijkt toch ook een groot deel van overheden te zijn.
https://www.rijksfinancien.nl/jaarverslag/2024/XVI#7856095
Ik zie niet waar die derden staan uitgesplitst? Er staat wel: “Het aCBG is een tarief gefinancierde organisatie. Voor zijn omzet is het sterk afhankelijk van aanvragen (procedures) vanuit de farmaceutische industrie. ”
In het geval van de Coronaprikken kun je je afvragen of het wel een geruststellende gedachte is dat hun geld deels van de overheid komt. De overheden waarmee wij moesten dealen in het coronadossier, hebben staan liegen, pushen, dwingen, chanteren, geweld gebruikt, juridische middelen ingezet, sms-jes verwijderd met farma-onderonsjes, onderzoek gesaboteerd, data gemanipuleerd… en dat moeten wij dan als betrouwbaar opvatten.
Als geschreven: ik snap er nog steeds niet veel van, er zijn wel productcategorieën. Dat is alles qua uitsplitsing.
En eens, dat overheden niet te vertrouwen zijn als financiers. Maar ik vind zomaar, dat farmaceuten nog minder te vertrouwen zijn……