Theo Schetters tightens up and Jonathan Engler distances himself from the Great Barrington Declaration. And last night finally a relatively realistic piece in Trouw. Catalyst: a letter from Maurice de Hond. I posted earlier the article by Jan Bennink. The dissent is swelling and leaking through to the media – or is that wishful thinking?
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.
Het Nivel-rapport wekt de indruk geschreven te zijn als preventieve reputatie-beschermer naar aanleiding van de RKI-files en de aankondiging dat het Meester/Jacobs-rapport eind augustus zou worden gepubliceerd - en oei: die hadden toegang gehad tot de microdata! Als gezondheidsbewakers hun reputatie zien afbrokkelen moeten ze bij zichzelf te rade gaan, niet bij een reputatiemanager.
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.
Als Trouw iets schrijft als "The damage to trust in the institutional investigations into corona has already been done" dan is er echt wel wat aan de hand, ook volgens Trouw. Toch vinden we ineens een merkwaardig zinnetje:
"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." Dat is de bekende disclaimer van media en wetenschappers, anders krijgen ze de farma-inquisitie op hun dak. Dat woordje 'zouden' biedt wel hoop: zelfs in de disclaimer is er een zaadje van twijfel geplant.
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
De altijd bedachtzame immunoloog Theo Schetters wordt steeds stelliger in zijn uitspraken over de vaccinaties. Bij ON: '‘Ik vind het misdadig als je hier nu mee doorgaat." In onderstaand Weltschmerz-interview van podcast De Andere Tafel spreekt hij over "bij elkaar verzonnen" wetenschap(?), ook met betrekking tot HCQ, Vitamine D en ivermectine.
Schetters zegt met zoveel woorden dat alles wat hielp, werd verbannen, met dank aan de experts. (Lees in dat verband ook het stuk hieronder over Jonathan Engler.) De onmiskenbare correlatie tussen vaccinaties en sterftestijging heeft hij al vaker onverbloemd ter tafel gebracht. De hele toon van dit interview is echter weer wat steviger dan we van hem zijn gewend. Zo'n toon geeft weliswaar geen pas in wat er zoal in de wetenschap wordt uitgewisseld maar is volkomen terecht want het gaat allang niet meer om wetenschap, zoals Jan Bennink uitlegde. En in de journalistiek gaat het allang niet meer om waarheidsvinding of "De Derde Macht", constateert journalist Toine de Graaf.
Jonathan Engler rejects the Great Barrington Declaration
The Great Barrington Declaration (website) was een baken van gezond verstand in de aanvankelijke coronahysterie. Een pamflet voor "Focused protectione", inmiddels 940.000 maal ondertekend inclusief 65.000 zorgmedewerkers en wetenschappers. Nu is er een prominente ondertekenaar van de Great Barrington Declaration, destijds enthousiast pleitbezorger en voortrekker, die zijn handtekening van de lijst steunbetuigingen laat verwijderen.
Hij doet dat In het kort vanwege voortschrijdend inzicht: hij is er achter gekomen dat de hele 'Covidgebeurtenis' van iatrogene aard was. Het was alleen een pandemie vanwege dubieuze testprocedures, ontkennen van bewezen behandelingen en medicatie en andere overspannen paniekreflexen en belangenverstengelde of gezichtsreddende acties.
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 van laatst (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.
De “pandemie” - zoals ze was - werd gecreëerd door de reactie op de misplaatste en valse perceptie van een nieuw virus in omloop.
Er bestaat geen epidemiologisch model - anders dan een model dat onredelijk verdraaid en gemarteld is - dat een aantal belangrijke observaties kan verklaren over wat er gebeurde in het voorjaar van 2020, met name:
- 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) en wat er gedaan had moeten worden (d.w.z. niets bijzonders) - volledig tegengesteld is aan de analyse in uw verklaring. Uw document kan alleen maar dienen om een afschuwelijke leugen in het bewustzijn van de mensheid te verankeren, waardoor we allemaal voorbereid zijn op regelmatige herhalingen van de ramp die ons is overkomen.
To quote from my own summary of the Covid "event" (which should not be reversed by the use of the word "pandemic"):
"Lab leak” en ‘zoonotic spillover’ theorieën zijn de twee samenstellende delen van een opzettelijk gecreëerde valse dichotomie. Door alleen tussen deze twee keuzes te laten argumenteren, wordt de vraag vermeden of we eigenlijk wel een pandemie hadden en wat dus de oorzaak was van de ontelbare schade. Toch hebben BEIDE theorieën hetzelfde einddoel: het in stand houden van de “Pandemic Preparedness Industry” die, overspoeld door een enorm succesvolle “Covid”-aflevering, zich ongetwijfeld zal verheugen in het vooruitzicht van lucratieve herhalingen.
De vaak herhaalde verwijzingen naar “de volgende pandemie” - zelfs door sommige schijnbare “Covid dissidenten” - is een voorbode van hun bedoelingen, want onthoud, zoals ze zeggen:
"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.
Ik geloof dat de GBD - ook al is het onbewust - deel is gaan uitmaken van de machinerie die:
- distracts people from seeing the true nature of the events of 2020
- Entrenching the "Pandemic" Troop in Our Way of Thinking
- een toestand van permanente angst creëert / in stand houdt - die zichzelf waarschijnlijk zal vervullen - over de waarschijnlijkheid dat een ander “gemanipuleerd virus” “de volgende pandemie” zal veroorzaken.
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
Jonathan Engler has clearly climbed into a helicopter and has taken a good look at the whole thing and drawn his conclusions.
I think he's right.
We've been cheated
We've let ourselves be fooled
The few who recognized this early on have been ignored or denounced.
Michael Hewitt is still my hero.
Ennuh, Anton, thanks again.
Correction: I mean Nobel laureate Michael Levitt
Jonathan Engler is probably absolutely right. In my opinion, the covid pandemic is an opportunistic outgrowth of – as I call it in my book – 'crisis capitalism'.
However, there is no point in peddling this on a large scale now. Most people are still stuck in the narrative. Our first concern must be to inform the people who are now being invited to the new round of vaccinations. We must do our best to prevent as many new victims as possible by informing those people respectfully. Read my comments on the previous article by Jan Bennink.
After that, we can focus on system criticism. The covid crisis is just one of the many rotten excesses of the entire system, especially shareholder capitalism.
For those who are interested, the link to my book: https://www.bol.com/nl/nl/p/complot-of-opportunisme/9300000174188034/
Jonathan Engler is one of the few who knows (besides Fenton and Neil, see a.o. https://youtu.be/lTshGWBjNOU?si=8Dmnk1HTsmSjYctI ) Occam's razor skillfully and mercilessly expose the corona fake pandemic.
Vaccines are a belief, with a lot of money behind them. Arguments don't help believers.
If people with malicious intentions make weapons, then you can pretend that those weapons are not there (read: CRISPR viruses and the related pandemic preparedness industry).
The fact is, however, that they have us in a bind. Their GOF weapons exist and are exploited, one way or another, for their own gain. Evil Strangeloves (yes, you, Marion) have permanently ruined our lives for the time being.
If someone points a gun at you, you can crow "false dichotomy" because you want a different discourse/narrative. Me too, but there isn't. Not really. Not now.
Pharma wants to make our immune system their commodity.
You have to have an answer to that. Who are you in their ecosystem?
I think Jonathan Engler is right. Like Fenton and Neil, they have gradually moved up. It's like peeling off the layers of an onion. I'm sure there was something of a virus going around in early 2020, but that's nothing out of the ordinary. The misery started when sapiens went to save the world once again. That often goes wrong.
Engler has also written a good piece about the choice of mRNA.
https://open.substack.com/pub/sanityunleashed?r=126uyo&utm_medium=ios
But maybe you had already read it.
John Campbell has a conversation titled russian roulette. It seems that speed of injection increases the chance of leaking into the bloodstream. There is also a risk with traditional vaccines!
Indeed that's about Marc Girardot's Bolus Theory: https://thebolustheory.com/
It could perhaps explain the increase in chronic diseases (including autism) and all kinds of vague complaints.
Watch the podcast of Sven Hulleman with physician/researcher Jorine Hammink. It developed, from its own resources, a test that provides clarity about Long Covid and related matters, but is not allowed to draw any conclusions from this. Yet she continues, risking her own life. Part II is on its way. See: HOOP HELDER HULLEMAN and JORCLINIC.
I don't know, I'm curious. That would be wonderful, but the Telearts Society is not so enthusiastic yet:
Warning:
Unreliability Spike Test JorClinic
On behalf of the NTG:
Upon inquiry at the laboratory where the test results are implemented, it turned out that the results of the tests with the claim that is made on them are not (yet?) correct.
With these measurements, it is not possible to determine at this time whether there is still active MRNA present that produces Spike proteins. In addition, it seems that the validity of the test is not (yet?) sufficient to differentiate between long-COVID and vaccine damage.
In addition, from the first test results, no Spike proteins were found in the blood by the test. This may be because there may not have been a sufficient selection in advance for potential vaccine damage candidates, which they needed to assess the quality of the test results.
In addition, too few tests have been done to quantify the results. In addition, in the case of vaccine damage, patients may not be able to perform the blood test to detect spike proteins. It is also possible that the spike proteins are no longer detectable in the blood, so you have to look for evidence that the spike proteins have already spread in the blood to other tissues in a different way than through blood tests. It may be that the MRNA is no longer active but has already caused the damage.
This can best be demonstrated by biopsies and these can then best be assessed by pathologists with this tissue examination.
This test is expensive and cannot give the conclusive answer claimed by JorClinic, based on the data we have received so far.
We, as NTG, recommend not to have any tests done at JorClinic yet, as long as one cannot yet guarantee that the results are actually valid and can also be interpreted for what they have been claimed to be able to do in advance.
JorClinic can't do that at the moment. That would be a waste of money and effort. In addition, Jorclinic cannot provide a proven good treatment for the claimed results.
In addition, they say they do not want to draw conclusions from the results, that is reserved for the doctors who would have sent people to them. That is strange, if you claim to be able to give a definite answer as to whether one has proven long-COVID or vaccine damage or a combination thereof, but cannot draw a conclusion.
As a doctor, who sends people to them with a new test, you would at least expect the inventor of the test to think along with the applicants about how the results can be interpreted – or not. In addition, they do not burn themselves on the treatments.
We as NTG now have 2.5 years of experience with vaccine damage treatments and long-COVID, but they hardly propose any of the resources that we have had a lot of success with so far.
That gives you food for thought.
– Expensive test.
– No valid results.
– Not thinking along with the interpretation of the test.
– Not providing treatment.
For the time being, the NTG states that this test is insufficiently reliable and cannot yet give the results that are claimed by JorClinic.
Be warned!
The NTG: Dutch Tele-Physicians Society.
You write that they can't draw conclusions, but I understood that they weren't allowed to draw conclusions from above. That would make a difference. I had hoped that the truth would finally come out. The wish is the father of the thought. Maybe we'll have to wait and see what happens next.
A few weeks ago, the AD made an appeal about who was going to get vaccinated again this fall. I have secured the negative reactions. You'll have them too. If not, I can email them.
Totally agree with Jonathan. You could already see it in the sudden cases that shot up worldwide at the same time after the PCR test was rolled out. Also, the fact that the same virus caused very different amounts of deaths in different countries. See city of New York vs other major cities in NW-USA or Haiti vs Dominican Republic, and there are more.
Injecting an experimental drug into the entire world's population did and then does the real harm of which there is no end in sight.
It doesn't even have to be due to mRNA, but purely to the injection of drugs that eventually end up directly in the veins due to pressure differences. See Marc Girardot's Bolus Theory: https://thebolustheory.com/
Covid is not much more dangerous than influenza and the whole Covid Pandemic was a hoax of unprecedented proportions which many people still don't realize while calling you a wappie.
I hope that the penny will drop and that those responsible who have filled their pockets in an unbelievable way will disappear behind bars.
Needless to say, Marc Girardot was also present John Campbell
Yes, that's how I came up with it. 😀
Has there ever been any research into 'long-covid' among unvaccinated people (who have therefore endured an infection with 'covid')? To me, it is strange that a distinction is made here between 'long-covid' and vaccination damage.
Maybe I missed something...
If it has been done at all, at least it has not been put on the big screen. Sensitive subject, perhaps even more sensitive than mortality because the victims are still alive...