Kritische geluiden zwellen aan: Theo Schetters, Jonathan Engler en… Trouw!

Trouw: Nivel is left with the shards

Faithful describes the debacle of the Nivel report which, like all previous reports by RIVM and CBS, is based on flawed data.

Because Nivel has reported more transparently than the carefully bandaged reports from CBS and RIVM, it is easier to pinpoint where things are wrong. And that fits in well with the findings of Bram Bakker and Herman Steigstra (tweet about Trouw article). And the concerns of Theo Schetters, to name just a few (and it reinforces hypotheses that we have been expressing on virus varia for three years).

Data figurehead Maurice de Hond can't stand it for quite some time and decided that this was the time to write a letter. The publicity he managed to generate prompted Nivel to react, ignoring it was not an option. Despite this, their disputed conclusions of the retracted study are still prominently displayed on the Nivel website.

The Nivel report gives the impression of having been written as a preventive reputation-protector in response to the RKI files and the announcement that the Meester/Jacobs report would be published at the end of August – and oops: they had had access to the microdata! When health guards see their reputation crumbling, they should look to themselves, not to a reputation manager.

The mistakes that Bakker has shown have been, let's say, overlooked internationally. We may remember the virus varia article the data from the UK, where the unvaccinated came off just as badly.

If Trouw writes something like "The damage to trust in the institutional investigations into corona has already been done" then there is really something going on, also according to Trouw. Yet we suddenly find a curious sentence:

“But at the population level, the vaccines had a protective effect, as the results of large international studies show time and again. Vaccines would have prevented many deaths.That's the well-known disclaimer of media and scientists, otherwise they'll get the pharma inquisition on their roof. That word 'should' does offer hope: even in the disclaimer a seed of doubt has been planted.

If Nivel acknowledges that the data are misinterpreted or unusable, this is implicitly a disastrous judgment on everything that has been claimed so far from an institutional perspective about vaccinations, their effectiveness and their share in excess mortality. With international implications.

What Trouw has not yet thought of or wants to know: if results were in line with those of the Nivel report, then there is a good chance that they come from the same calculation methodology with the same errors. So not only in the Netherlands but almost worldwide. If this is recognised, then the cards are really on the table. Then the game can really begin.

The only escape, which we already see in the critics from the healthcare domain itself, is to let it rest for now. The data is simply not enough. Walk through people, nothing to see here.

I didn't think so.

Theo Schetters sharpens the knives

The ever-thoughtful immunologist Theo Schetters is becoming more and more emphatic in his statements about the vaccinations. At ON: "I think it's criminal if you continue with this now." In the Weltschmerz interview below from podcast De Andere Tafel, he talks about "made-up" science(?), also with regard to HCQ, Vitamin D and ivermectin.

Schetters says in so many words that anything that helped was banished, courtesy of the experts. (In that regard, also read the piece below about Jonathan Engler.) He has often unapologetically raised the undeniable correlation between vaccinations and mortality increases. However, the whole tone of this interview is a bit firmer than we are used to from him. Such a tone may not be appropriate for what is exchanged in science, but it is entirely justified because it is no longer about science, as Jan Bennink explained. And journalism is no longer about finding the truth or "The Third Force", observes journalist Toine de Graaf.

Jonathan Engler rejects the Great Barrington Declaration

The Great Barrington Declaration (website) was a beacon of common sense in the initial corona hysteria. A pamphlet for "Focused protectione", now signed 940,000 times, including 65,000 healthcare workers and scientists. Now there is a prominent signatory of the Great Barrington Declaration, an enthusiastic advocate and pioneer at the time, who has had his signature removed from the list of endorsements.

In short, he does so because of advancing insight: he has found out that the whole 'Covid event' was of an iatrogenic nature. It was only a pandemic because of questionable testing procedures, denial of proven treatments and medications, and other overwrought panic reflexes and interest-twisting or face-saving actions.

Physician and medical investor
Jonathan began his career in clinical medicine. After a few years, he moved into the pharmaceutical industry, where he designed and led an international clinical research program, before he and a colleague saw a gap in the market for a company that used IT to automate various clinical research processes. The company they founded was sold, with 6 offices worldwide and 500 employees. Jonathan then retrained as a lawyer, but missing the commercial world, he invested in several healthcare start-ups, of which he is now chairman of one company (which deals with cancer diagnostics). His X account is Jessica Hockett.

Below is the translation of his substack article.

Jonathan Engler, Sep 24, 2024:

Why I asked for my name to be removed as a signatory to the Great Barrington Declaration.
I now believe that this Declaration is part of the problem, not the solution.

Just like Jessica Hockett's post from last (here) this probably won't bring me any new friends and most likely it will cause me to lose some of my existing friends. Well, so be it. I'm not going to stand by and watch a giant lie manifest itself just because people find the whole truth distasteful, nor because of a misplaced desire to rally behind "consensus" for tactical reasons. (Maybe I'm misremembering, but I'm pretty sure that allowing a fabricated "consensus" to drown out all other viewpoints is the cause of the mess we're in right now).

I have just sent the email below to gbdeclaration@gmail.com (the only address I have at Their website could find). Whether or not I get a reply is largely irrelevant, though, as I don't think the names (except for the ones on the main page of their website) are public.

Anyway, I still wanted to send this out and publish it as a record of my thoughts and as a public statement of myself, especially since I signed the GBD and encouraged others to do the same.

Hello

Would you please remove my name from the list of signatories to the Great Barrington Declaration?

When I signed this document, I believed the narrative that there was a new virus circulating that was causing a new disease, and that some form of protection was considered desirable for some people.

However, I am now firmly convinced that the pandemic was staged. All perceived and reported harms can be explained by a combination of: mistreatment, ill-treatment, non-treatment, neglect, abuse, and data fraud.

The main means used to stage the event were propaganda, data fraud (of various kinds) and the mass rollout of a fraudulent test.

Without it:

• nothing unusual would have been noticed at any time
• Would the status quo observed before the "pandemic" was declared (a total lack of excess mortality or reported clusters of unusual illnesses despite the widespread presence of whatever it was that made the "covid tests" positive) have continued uninterrupted.

The "pandemic" – such as it was – was created by the reaction to the misguided and false perception of a new virus in circulation.

There is no epidemiological model – other than one that has been unreasonably distorted and tortured – that can explain a number of important observations about what happened in the spring of 2020, in particular:

• undetected pre-pandemic presence of the putative pathogen (as measured by the same tests to track its progress later)
• lack of ripples and clusters of excess mortality
• Waves of deaths corresponding to administrative and political actions
• widely divergent "pandemic outcomes" between countries and other regional units with administrative boundaries.

"Targeted protection" would, in practice, have led to more testing, more isolation, and generally more dystopian treatment of those who "test positive." Since the pandemic narrative was essentially created by the mistreatment of the most vulnerable, which could only happen due to their isolation and the consequent lack of witnesses, the strategies embraced in the statement would not have improved the situation and probably even worsened it.

Hence, my analysis of the 'pandemic' (here) and what should have been done (i.e. nothing special) – is completely contrary to the analysis in your statement. Your document can only serve to anchor a heinous lie in the consciousness of humanity, preparing us all for regular repetitions of the disaster that has befallen us.

To quote from my own summary of the Covid "event" (which should not be reversed by the use of the word "pandemic"):

Lab leak and zoonotic spillover theories are the two constituent parts of a deliberately created false dichotomy. By only arguing between these two choices, the question of whether we actually had a pandemic at all and therefore what caused the countless damage is avoided. Yet BOTH theories have the same end goal: to sustain the "Pandemic Preparedness Industry" which, engulfed by a hugely successful "Covid" episode, will no doubt rejoice in the prospect of lucrative reruns.

The oft-repeated references to "the next pandemic" – even by some apparent "Covid dissidents" – is a harbinger of their intentions, for remember, as they say:

"Any rogue lab can now create these viruses."

After all, as we've argued, the actual escape of something from a lab isn't necessary to generate a "pandemic"; All it takes is seeding the narrative of the escape, rolling out testing and the resulting social contagion.

I believe that the GBD – even if unconsciously – has become part of the machinery that:

• distracts people from seeing the true nature of the events of 2020
• Entrenching the "Pandemic" Troop in Our Way of Thinking
• creates/maintains a state of permanent fear – which is likely to fulfill itself – about the likelihood that another "engineered virus" will cause "the next pandemic."

In my opinion, the only way to prevent "the next pandemic" is to show people how utterly ridiculous the story they have been told over the past few years is.

Statements that don't question the central lie of that narrative don't help and backfire on that goal.

For that reason, I distance myself from the GBD.

Best regards

Dr Jonathan Engler (United Kingdom)

MB ChB LLB