It is abundantly clear that the role of vaccines as a driver of excess mortality must also be seriously investigated in the Netherlands. This has been called for for years, since summer 2021. It is clear that vaccines can play a serious role in excess mortality. Because of obscurantism surrounding the vaccination data, researchers are forced to test hypotheses indirectly, which is derogatorily called "juggling of lines."
Time and again, vaccines appear to be a dominant explanatory factor of correlations, along with the lockdowns, although the latter usually lack the temporal logic and mechanistic explanation that is present with the vaccines. I am not aware of any studies to the contrary, apart from models, laboratory experiments and (small) trials, carried out by stakeholders, in which sometimes abonimable results are left unexplained or even smoothed out.
According to Ernst Kuipers, it is in the state's interest that these data are never released. There's something in that, of course. After all, transparency could show that the unimaginable incompetence in health land has had fatal consequences on a scale that we do not yet dare to overlook. There are tens of thousands of deaths.
It could mean that everyone (including politicians) was guilty or complicit in multiple homicide by guilt or multiple manslaughter. Despite obvious and explicit warnings. They simply didn't want to know any better: see the censorship and propaganda via Think Tank Disinformation and the (social) media. Against their better judgment, they measured and injected through, old to young, up to 5-year-olds.
Secret decision-making in the State interest?
The same applies to measures as to vaccines. The insane splash guards, hand disinfection and face masks are hopefully safely stored in the playset of a minister who still wants to play doctor after his disastrous term in office. Various false security interventions have cost lives, but that is dwarfed by the damage caused by lockdowns and injections.
To what extent that will shake the State to its foundations remains to be seen. If the media remains as corrupt as it is now, it might not be so bad. As long as Jinek, Op1 and Radio1 continue to maintain the narrative, there may be little to worry about, even if the data is released. Researchers who ring the alarm bell are amicably dismissed with a smile: "Now leave the interpretation to us."
In the meantime, very burdensome studies abroad are appearing; anyone noticed anything about collapsing state security in the US and UK? If, as a result of these studies, no state security is at stake in those countries, Kuipers' State Security Excuse can be taken off the table. Can someone pass that on to him? Perhaps there will be a minister here and there, but with a sufficient propaganda budget, that will not be too bad, the media will keep the population safe.
Confidence is plummeting further, leon de Winter also points out in de Telegraaf. This is seen as alarming in the state media, but in the current situation I see it as a hopeful sign of common sense.
Evaluating the expert recommendations regarding medical and non-medical interventions may not be easy in the Netherlands; Things are better abroad. The scientific findings are very reminiscent of arguments that Jeroen Pols and Willem Engel put forward in their lost court cases. A wonderful déja-vu, such a scientific paper with texts that seem to have been plucked from the old Virus Madness site.
Pols and Engel lost their lawsuits against the VWS policy initiated by OMT experts because the OMT had a different opinion, Dutch judges ruled several times. That is one of the advantages of 'independent' satellites with which VWS can screen. A kind of hired big brother that you can bring in if you can't finish it on your own.
First, a summary of a study by Kevin Bardosh (h-index: 25, University of Washington and University of Edinburgh), then something about a study of two other respectable institutes: Johns Hopkins University and Sweden's Lund University. Those who have been shouting "Trust the Science®" all along will have to come up with a different slogan. Something about cherry-picking presumably.
How has the COVID pandemic harmed society? An overall evaluation and overview of what we know (2020-21)
Kevin Bardosh, May 23, 2023
Early in the Covid pandemic, concerns were raised that lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions would cause significant multidimensional damage to society. This document comprehensively evaluates the global state of knowledge on these negative social impacts, focusing on their type and magnitude in 2020 and 2021.
A claims framework was developed that covers 10 categories: health, economy, income, food security, education, lifestyle, intimate relationships, community, environment and governance. The analysis is a synthesis of 600 publications with a focus on meta-analyses, systematic reviews, global reports and studies in multiple countries. This cumulative academic research shows that the collateral damage of the response to the pandemic was significant and extensive and will leave a legacy of damage for hundreds of millions of people in the years to come.
Many of the Original predictions are broadly supported through the survey data, including:
- an increase in the mortality rate among non-Covid patients,
- deterioration of mental health,
- child abuse and domestic violence,
- increasing global inequality,
- food insecurity,
- missed educational opportunities,
- unhealthy lifestyle,
- social polarization,
- skyrocketing debts,
- democratic decline and
- declining human rights.
Young people, individuals and countries with lower socioeconomic status, women and people with pre-existing vulnerabilities were hit hardest. Societal harm should call into question the dominant mental model of the response to the pandemic: it is likely that Covid policies have brought more harm than benefit, although further research is needed to fill knowledge gaps and examine policy considerations, in particular at national level.
Planning and responding to future global public health emergencies should integrate a wider range of expertise to account for and mitigate the societal harm of government intervention.
The full PDF covers 119 pages. The PDF link is under the Abstract, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
The above analysis was based on 600 papers. The study below started with 19,646 potentially relevant studies and selected... 22 with standardized measurements for a meta-analysis. So no models. It strikes me as very rare; Only 1 in 1,000 papers is suitable for inclusion in a meta-analysis... On the other hand, 22 good studies, based on actual figures, can provide fantastic basic material for a meta-analysis. Cherry-picking? Or a responsible tiebreaker? I already know what the pro-lockdowners will say.
Historical study: benefits of lockdowns 'a drop in the bucket, compared to the cost'
To an article from The Telegraph and The Daily Sceptic
Who would have thought? A new groundbreaking meta-study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University and Sweden's Lund University has concluded that the draconian restrictions imposed on the UK population in spring 2020 saved fewer than 1,700 lives in England and Wales and were a drop in the ocean compared to the staggering additional costs.
Scientists from Johns Hopkins University and Lund University looked at nearly 20,000 studies on measures taken to protect populations around the world from Covid.
Their findings suggest that locking up the population in response to the first wave of the pandemic, compared to the less stringent policies of, say, Sweden, prevented no more than 1,700 deaths in England and Wales. In an average week, there are about 11,000 deaths in England and Wales.
The report's authors stated that their findings showed that the draconian measures had a "negligible effect" on Covid mortality and were a "policy error of gigantic proportions".
Conclusion: "The science of lockdowns is clear, the data is in: the deaths saved were a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral damage that was caused."
The damaging impact of incarceration on children's health and education, on economic growth and its contribution to large increases in public debt has become increasingly apparent since the introduction of the policy, but a secretive government unit worked with (social) media companies during the pandemic in an attempt to curb criticism of the controversial lockdown policy. as The Telegraph recently revealed.
From Covid Disinformation Unit monitored social media and asked tech companies to remove posts it deemed "potentially harmful content."
The first UK lockdown, in March 2020, was introduced based on model calculations by Prof Neil Ferguson who predicted that there could be more than 500,000 deaths in the UK if no action was taken to stop the spread of the virus. His research suggested that even with mitigating measures such as social distancing and quarantine of households for Covid cases, there could be at least 250,000 deaths unless further measures were taken.
Researchers from the Johns Hopkins study said the findings showed the lockdowns were "a global policy error of gigantic proportions." Johns Hopkins is one of the most respected medical schools in the world and became known during the pandemic for its Covid dashboard that measures cases and deaths around the world.
Prof. Steve H. Hanke, co-author and professor of applied economics and co-director of the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise at Johns Hopkins University, said, "When it comes to Covid, epidemiological models have many things in common: dubious assumptions, razor-sharp predictions of disasters missing the mark, and few lessons learned."
The researchers examined 19,646 potentially relevant studies and selected 22 with standardized measurements for a meta-analysis. The new research on the impact of lockdowns has been published in a report by the Institute of Economic Affairs due out on Monday.
EU and US
Across Europe, there were 6,000 fewer deaths thanks to lockdowns than with a less draconian approach, while in the U.S., it saved 4,000 deaths, the researchers conclude. [So little...? Something to find out – ed.]
In contrast, models by Prof. Ferguson and his colleagues at Imperial College London predicted in March 2020 that, without action, the United Kingdom could see 510,000 deaths from Covid, with 2.2 million in the United States.
After the lockdown was imposed, the scientist suggested that "intense social distancing and other interventions taking place now" could reduce that number in the UK to 20,000.
Parliamentary Covid inquiry will examine government decision-making during the pandemic but has already been the subject of significant criticism regarding its speed, scope and transparency.
[It's no different in the UK than in the UK]
Co-author Dr Lars Jonung, emeritus professor at the Knut Wicksell Centre for Financial Studies at Sweden's Lund University, said the study was the first to fully evaluate the impact of mandatory restrictions: "It shows that lockdowns were a failed promise. They had negligible health effects but disastrous economic, social and political costs to society. Lockdowns probably represent the biggest policy mistake in modern times."
Worth it to Read in full, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
Afterburner 1: The conclusions of Dr. Lars Jonung and Prof. Steve Hanke et al. are remarkably similar to those of Kevin Bardosh, about which we last week. After studying 600 articles on the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions during the pandemic, Bardosh concluded that the collateral damage was "substantial and extensive and will leave a legacy of harm for hundreds of millions of people".
Afterburner 2: The Telegraph has here another story with more details about the researchers' findings. In addition, two of the researchers have a Comment piece in which they state that "lockdowns were a colossal global policy mistake that should never be imposed again".
So much for the lockdowns. If you want to experience a similar déja-vu erlebnis in a few years when the vaccinations are evaluated, read the study of mRNA/vaccine innovator Carlton B. Brown and his team. Links are at the bottom this article
Lockdowns, curfews, border closures, 'vaccinations'. We saw the bizarre blockades with Belgium in May 2020 (could be a Suske en Wiske title). Laughable, even then. But oh how seriously it was taken. Think the mRNA jabs have done a lot more damage than the other measures, but is that ever acknowledged? I doubt it.
I find it very strange to be in the middle of this story. We have been deliberately manipulated by the government. And still, of course.
All the studies that are now being presented prove the skeptics right. But what has been the underlying idea of all these governments? That remains the key question for me. Fear, silliness, groupthink, combination of all that?