Als Maarten Keulemans iets aanprijst, ben ik op mijn hoede. In een column van Kustaw Bessems ziet hij "extreem rake observaties". Begrijpelijk, want de column leest als een lofzang op de traditionele media met hun hoogwaardige informatie en als een aanklacht tegen de sociale media, die een andere werkelijkheid creëren. Een verkeerde werkelijkheid dus want in de traditionele media kunnen we zien hoe het werkelijk zit. Zo lees ik het in elk geval, maar oordeel zelf.
Maarten Keulemans' tweet with a full screenshot of the column on X. In the article, Kustaw Bessems argues that only newspaper subscribers will read his article because they pay for high-quality information. I myself canceled the VK years ago because of the disinformation that the newspaper spread - but yes, I am on X, there you have it. I did read this column, but not so much because Maarten said so.
Every month I receive the always worth reading 'Monthly Journal' by Nico Lemmens in my mailbox. A reflective newsletter with an always interesting book tip with quotes and/or summary, followed by a section with related or otherwise striking anecdotes and a lighter section with Varia, usually also quotes. Coincidentally, this month the book Rudderless by journalist Kustaw Bessems was central to this. From the review I conclude that it is a thorough critical book that discusses the relationship between citizens and government.
My current search for better governance began with dismay about government action in the corona crisis
Kustaw Bessems, rudderless
In any case, that sounds promising.
You can read the entire 'Book Tip' by Nico Lemmens read here (with permission of the author). Would you like to receive his Monthly Journal too, mail him. The book of Bessems order here.
Brief description of the content
In his book, Bessems argues for a government that actually functions for the citizen. He points to fundamental problems in the Dutch governance model, such as the lack of legal protection for citizens, a proliferation of enforcers without adequate control, and a civil service culture in which dissent is discouraged.
"Mijn huidige zoektocht naar een beter bestuur begon met ontsteltenis over het overheidsoptreden in de coronacrisis." writes Bessems. The corona crisis is held up as an example of failing policy, characterized by inefficiency, lack of crisis management and an overdependence on experts without political consideration. Politicians such as Rutte often followed advice without taking responsibility, which led to opaque decision-making and far-reaching violations of fundamental rights.
Bessems argues for reforms such as more civil rights, better protection of the rule of law, and a government that values expertise and diversity. He criticizes the business thinking within the government and emphasizes the importance of contradiction and a servant leadership style. Practical recommendations include empowering citizens, a greater focus on quality rather than quantity in government projects, and strengthening communities.
I fully endorse the thrust of the book, at least judging by the quotes Nico Lemmens gives. Let me be the first to say that I have not yet read the book itself (300 pages). But for a book that features the corona crisis so prominently, there are quite a few inaccuracies in the quoted passages. Then you wonder a bit about the topics you know less about, unless you suffer from Gell-Mann Amnesia.
Duidelijk wordt wel wat er gebeurt als je vertrouwt op de "hoogwaardige informatie" van de traditionele media. Terugkerende lezers van dit blog zien het zelf vast ook wel maar ik vond het toch de moeite om Nico (en misschien ook Kustaw zelf) hierop te wijzen. Neem nou de volgende paragraaf:
"Zeker 50.000 mensen stierven aan corona. Andere slachtoffers vielen door het zorginfarct. In 2023 stierven nog steeds 12.700 mensen meer dan normaal. Ter vergelijking: bij de grote griepgolven van 2015 en 2018 waren die getallen ruim vijfduizend en nog geen tweeënhalfduizend. In 2023 werden naar schatting 90.000 mensen ernstig beperkt door postcovid."
Kustaw Bessems, rudderless
Just one by one.
"Zeker 50.000 mensen stierven aan corona.”
The official number is about half of that (23,000, see graph), and that includes
- many thousands of people who tested positive who were not sick with Covid and
- people who would normally have been booked for a different cause of death.
The fact that these people are misclassified is not a figment of the imagination. This was so decreed by the WHO and was - entirely in line with the methods described by Bessems - blindly followed.
This is missing from the unmistakable image that the 'newspaper subscriber' has received.
"Other victims fell due to the healthcare infarction."
The healthcare crisis was the result of policy choices, not of the disease. Apart from the 'squeezing of care' for years, with preventive treatment by general practitioners, in accordance with normal flu protocols, the entire healthcare infarction would not have been necessary. However, early (and it is now increasingly confirmed: effective) treatment was banned and even led to criminal prosecution of doctors, to this day. It is unclear how many victims were caused by this healthcare ban, but there is no doubt that it had serious consequences, including mortality. People were allowed to go to the hospital when it was actually already too late.
Postponed care then? Eline van den Broek researched one of the most effective life-saving treatments that is also regularly performed acutely because of the urgency of complaints: angioplasty and stentting. Her research came to approximately 2,500 Missed diagnoses which may (probably?) have led to deaths. The study did not take into account that the profile of angioplasty patients shows similarities with that of covid victims (e.g. age, overweight, possibly also ethnicity).
The researchers don't know whether those lower-than-expected (and labeled as 'missed') diagnoses resulted from canceled or postponed appointments, or whether people didn't show up for appointments - or whether there was simply less demand. Did patients not dare to come because Covid was so brutally deadly? Or perhaps they had (partly) died from Covid? After all, they were at high risk.
"In 2023, 12,700 more people died than normal."
This is tacitly stated by Bessems as a result of 'still' Covid stepped up. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that vaccinations have contributed substantially to this excess mortality. Now the book review aptly describes how policy is rushed through in an unconstitutional technocratic way. However, this also applied to vaccinations, where people were injected with genetically modified, insufficiently tested substances without proper information; a violation of the Nuremberg Code. But not a word about that in the entire book review and so -I have to assume- not in the book either.
If the corona period triggered the author, how could he have missed it? I know, I know them in my area too: for that you just have to be a newspaper subscriber and rely on the high-quality information you get in this way. Finally. The subject is apparently still too hot to handle, especially for people who have been vaccinated themselves, for which we fully understand. But assigning this excess mortality to a flu that has not been measured for years without substantiation is going too far. It is desirable to break that myth in order to prevent a recurrence (the 2025 booster is already planned).
It is actually better to look at excess mortality in seasonal years, for example from August to July. Green is 2023-2024. The start of 2024-2025 again does not bode well.
The RIVM has now drastically increased the mortality expectation, to come closer to this dramatic 'excess' mortality, which is therefore apparently decreasing. Has that been properly explained to newspaper subscribers?
"By comparison, in the major flu waves of 2015 and 2018, those numbers were more than five thousand and less than two and a half thousand."
"2015: ruim 5000"
I think Bessems just looked wrong here. 2014/2015, that was not 5,000 victims but 8,600. Or the newspaper described 8,600 as 'more than 5,000', that is also possible.
Three notes on this:
- If there had been a test for the presence of a flu virus at the time, this number would probably have been double or more. That depends on the combination of virulity/contagiousness.
- And here again, the WHO had not decreed that every death in which flu was listed as a contributing factor on the B form had to be classified as a flu death.
- Primary care for people with flu symptoms was allowed by the government at the time.
"2018 nog geen tweeënhalfduizend griepdoden"…? Dat waren er 9.500!
"In 2023 werden naar schatting 90.000 mensen ernstig beperkt door postcovid."
Post-covid is largely a non-descript collection of complaints, such as:
- symptoms such as fatigue, loss of condition, concentration problems, difficulty with stimuli and memory problems, 'brain fog', often ill. These symptoms may indicate neurological problems or microclots in the brain. They are also said to have a post-traumatic origin (think of social disruption, the threats to which people are exposed, including threats to the lives of family members and loved ones, economic downturn due to lockdowns, etc.). Policy consequences, in that case.
- In the criteria for Long Covid, we recognize known side effects of the vaccinations:
- Dysregulation of the immune system
- Autoimmunity
- damage to the vascular walls
- Microclots
- neurological problems (dysautonomia)
The post-covid criteria have been drawn up on the basis of early assumptions and models that establish a relationship with a infection suppose.
Keep in mind that 93% of the participants in this post-covid study had already been vaccinated at the first measurement, 42% were vaccinated (again?) between the first and second measurement. The unvaccinated were apparently less bothered by it.
With such percentages it could also be considered a post-vaccination study with a small control group, but that topic is avoided. 40% of participants contracted Covid again after vaccination. Then you would say that the effectiveness of those vaccinations leaves something to be desired.
Wie zich aanmeldt met vaccinatieschade krijgt geen (gratis, gespecialiseerde) hulp. Dat zou de schijn kunnen wekken dat de vaccins niet veilig zijn. Logisch dat iedereen dan "long covid" heeft toch?
Conclusion
Kustaw Bessems dares to criticize the system. Also in this book - judging by the summary/quotes - he shows himself to be a critical journalist, of which we have too little. But one with enormous confidence in newspapers. The fact that even someone with such a sharp eye cannot see through the pharmaceutical propaganda shows the deplorable state of the media in our country. He has undoubtedly informed himself well, through quality newspapers and perhaps peer reviewed articles and pieces from CBS and RIVM, that would not surprise me. I hope that there will be a second edition in which he takes a closer look at these figures. Perhaps that can also lead him to include the Covid vaccinations in his argument. Or would he deftly navigate around it, pointing to his broken navigation beacons? That seems to me to be too close to his honor.
One tip: don't call a science journalist to ask what the real situation is!
Too bad, because Kustaw is one of the better journalists.
He has made a very interesting series of podcasts about Governing in NL.
https://open.spotify.com/show/6yk8zBUJEob74rne1ZBJuX?si=LAc0PFgCQDOzuvPcB6thRA
There are more good, intelligent, critical and sensible people who have the media on a pedestal. I can't blame them, the propaganda is everywhere. You really have to make a U-turn mentally to get out of that.
Still all respect for Kustaw Bessems!
Well, it remains amazing how we perceive things completely differently. You can see that 'they' are exaggerating the numbers to come to the desired conclusion. I myself think that it is precisely through critical thinking that I have come to a certain view. The mainstream media think they have a monopoly on the truth, and it is almost impossible to break through.
I recently noticed this in NRC and responded to it in a letter. Of course never heard anything again:
From my comment on a column by Caroline de Gruyter of December 21:
'She is talking about a minister of health who wants to abolish childhood vaccines. This is of course about Robert F. Kennedy junior. What Kennedy is literally saying is that he wants to see full double-blind tests of the 72 (...) vaccines that American children are administered until they are eighteen. And a study of the consequences of combining all these vaccines. These studies do not exist at the moment. What a radical body of thought.'
Kennedy is the one who wants to put the choice with the parents and does not want to enforce any obligation, but if Mrs. de Gruyter portrays Kennedy like that, the average NRC reader will blindly adopt it.
Furthermore, you should have a substantive discussion for each topic. Then you can always disagree, fine. I think that people who follow the 'alternative' media often keep an eye on the traditional media. If only to remain critical. In this way, 'we' can make a decision. The average Volkskrant/NRC reader does not think of seeing the Other Krant. Or to watch Blckbx. They know in advance that it is inferior. I try to look at it neutrally, really. But the big splinter is mainly in the eye of the MSM supporters.
I miss an important detail in the causes of all kinds of complaints that, when they happen to worsen after a virus infection, are usually attributed entirely to that virus.
Research shows that women between the ages of 40 and 60 have two to four times more post-covid-like symptoms than women of other ages. It is also the age that they can be in menopause and develop similar symptoms including brain fog.
Bessems is a collaborator who wants to come across as a resistance fighter after the war.
Out of control? He was a journalist at the Volkskrant and therefore sailed on the tightly set course of captain Pieter Klok. We know that rate and we also know for whom cargo was transported at the time.
But actually (afterwards) did he want to sail to another destination then?
Bessems is apparently now also doing a kind of 'Meta turn-around'. Just like all those other companies in the US that now want to 'kiss the ring by Trump's hand'. And which he criticizes in the column linked by Keulemans.
Perhaps we should check exactly which governments and organizations Bessems advises and in what capacity. Is he now a private advisor or has he been appointed somewhere?
"Let's check..." So far too few people do that. And often something is looked up and clear in a few seconds. Also who were and are wrong in the corona war. Cardiologist Dr Leonard Hofstra is affiliated with 'nutrition lives', an organization for prevention by means of lifestyle just like 'doctor and lifestyle'. What could be wrong with that... The man has a conflict of interest with pfizer and wants flu/corona shot combination, also for nursing staff because "you do it for someone else"... I just searched for 'embroidery thread' and saw that the most searched for in the past few hours is 'face masks in Belgium'. I didn't ask for that! It's not over yet and the twisting is even more shocking and in my eyes more dangerous than before. Still, I keep hope, because turning my mind to try to prevent loss of face is already something in the right direction. Now Koopmans and Osterhaus... they can also move to Belgium to walk with a face mask, it will be a lot quieter here. The figures of ambulance rides are again higher than high in my hometown. That has been since 2021 and always during and some weeks after vaccination rounds. Someone should notice that, right?
I follow on substack Roman Bystrianyk, co-author (with Susan Humphries) of 'Dissolving Illusions'. Instructive and fascinating, about the bizarre history of vaccinations.
The nice thing is that he also responds to comments. I have been wondering for a long time if there has ever been a proven vaccine against respiratory infections. After some back and forth, this is the last one from his hand:
Roman Bystrianyk
9 p.m.
The entire basis for protection against a microbe is fundamentally flawed. The mortality data shows a near 100% decline for all infectious diseases before vaccines (if any) and antibiotics. Whether there is a microbe or not doesn’t matter. The point is that it is about how healthy a person is, vastly outweighing any microbe that might cause a problem. Even Fauci admits the flu vaccine is a failure. Check out my article on this:
https://romanbystrianyk.substack.com/p/infectious-disease-antibiotics-and
In a 2023 paper by Morens, Taubenberger, and Fauci, the authors acknowledge that despite decades of widespread utilization of influenza vaccines, they have largely failed in controlling influenza and other mucosal respiratory viruses.
As of 2022, after more than 60 years of experience with influenza vaccines, very little improvement in vaccine prevention of infection has been noted. As pointed out decades ago, and still true today, the rates of effectiveness of our best approved influenza vaccines would be inadequate for licensure for most other vaccine-preventable diseases… Taking all of these factors into account, it is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines… Durably protective vaccines against non-systemic mucosal respiratory viruses with high mortality rates have thus far eluded vaccine development efforts.
[David M. Morens, Jeffery K. Taubenberger, and Anthony S. Fauci, “Rethinking next-generation vaccines for coronaviruses, influenza viruses, and other respiratory viruses,” Cell Host Microbe, January 11, 2023, pp. 146–157.]