Mattias Desmet reported on Facebook in detail about the efforts to organize a conversation with some members of SKEPP, the Belgian counterpart of our Skepsis Foundation. Mattias explains why there was no debate between him and Sam Brokken ("critics") and Martin Boudry and Joel De Ceulaer, known in Belgium "SKEPPtici". Below is that report, introduced with my thoughts on the self-proclaimed 'skeptics' not only in Belgium but also in the Netherlands.
Mattias: laureate of SKEPP
In any case, Mattias shows admirable angelic patience. In 2020, he received from SKEPP The Skeptical Well, the annual prize that is awarded to "the one who has been exceptionally uncritical and has totally misunderstood the popularization of knowledge and science". Below are two paragraphs from the report of that award ceremony. I myself have made the points where the 'SKEPPtici' were scientifically wrong in their fanatical struggle against right-minded critical thinkers who, on the basis of science, saw it right or at least asked the right questions. And no – not in retrospect: we already knew it then, hence the controversy (the better blogs have articles with which a timeline of the state of affairs can be reconstructed since mid-2020).
Below is the jury report. I only took the general introduction outlining the landscape we found ourselves in. It reflects how these skeptics view corona critics.
Moreover, the accusations in bold also directly contradict the views of Mattias Desmet (and I suspect with those of most of the select group of loyal virus variant readers). The rose highlighted terms are simply claims he never made and did not support in any way. The "skeptics", under the guise of superior scientific thinking, unabashedly allow themselves personal attacks and generalizations.
"In the (first) corona year 2020, there were many candidates for the Skeptical Well. Many of them were already known before: the people who are against vaccinations, those who suspect conspiracies behind everything – and so now behind the viral outbreak, behind pharmaceutical researchbehind any 5G mast. Some already believed in pseudomedicine and were now running high with the miraculous effect of vitamin, bleach of antimalarial drug. Others saw their suspicions confirmed about the existence of sinister conspiracies to decimate the world's population and to control the survivors better.
In addition, numbers juggled, mainly with the aim of clarifying how the experts manipulate us. It virus would not be nearly as dangerous as claimed Was. (A number of experts indeed thought at the very beginning of January 2020, that it was 'just' a new flu. As it goes in science, they quickly took back that idea based on the undeniable mortality rates.) It face mask would not help. The measures to physical distance and you hands 'to be washed to pieces' were useless and even harmful. We had to let the virus take its course and that a few more elderly people would die, we had to take it. Dead wood could be pruned, nature is hard, there is nothing you can do about it."
They are generalizations that they still proclaim "unchanged despite the advancing insight of scientists, of virologists, epidemiologists, as well as psychologists and sociologists". By the way, this is one of their own criticisms of Mattias Desmet. The pot blames the kettle...
But how is that possible? Have skeptics been brainwashed with a sense of authority? If a government agency says something is it scientific truth? (does it even exist?) Afraid of what happens when the government is no longer behind you? Heavily subsidized perhaps? I don't really believe the latter, but you would almost think so.
Farewell to the Skepsis Foundation
In the Netherlands, the Skepsis Foundation has been fighting for quackery and pseudo-science for two years. Yes, you read that right: not 'against' but 'for'. Under quackery I myself include the insane claims that have been made by governments and health officials about the vaccines, immunity and distance and water rituals, for example. Pseudoscience are pfizer's reports and fda and ema approval protocols and cbg. For me, that was reason to cancel my now decades-long donorship.
No matter how related I thought I felt to their tone, their sharpness and their scientific approach: when I tried to exchange ideas about the corona misstep on the forum of kloptdatwel.nl, I found a toxic cesspool of a few fat-skinned faint-hearted people. They prefer to talk to each other with you and attack the unsuspecting visitor with ad hominems of the kind "You have no medical training so you don't even know what you are talking about. Who are you?" and that is then played out against "the excellent science of the RIVM". A scared club that agrees so much that it seems like a conspiracy to bully visitors away as quickly as possible. (Click on the screenshots to read them). That may not be the fault of the Foundation, but they apparently do not find moderation necessary as long as it goes wrong in the desired direction.
And of course Maurice has to pay the price. Note that the criticism of him is based solely on assumptions and personal judgments:
At the time, I also sent an e-mail to chairman Nienhuys. I don't remember if I received a reply, but the transmission of the quarterly magazine Skepsis has in any case been stopped without many words being wasted. And then to think that I transferred another amount when Pepijn van Erp, one of their columnists, was involved in a lawsuit. I was one of the 700 Donors... I always read their club magazine with great pleasure. A real pity: I really thought Skepsis was an independent critical thinking club.
It has been found that more anti-quackery clubs are only critical if their attitude fits in with the official message of the government. Historically, that's understandable. Also look at the AMA in America: originally an anti-quackery club that to this day does vaccine propaganda, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
Traditionally, governments and anti-quacks have pursued the same goal: efficient medical treatments. These two parties were therefore always on the same page and so, thanks to their budgets, governments and their health institutes have built up knowledge and gained authority that the 'skeptics' could gratefully use. It is a bit like Maarten Keulemans who goes to the rivm website to see if something is right. The skepticism of the Dutch Skeptics did not go much further either. And certainly not the self-reflection.
Pepijn van Erp writes in an article:
That 1.5 meters is an experimentally established rule of thumb, based on research in the 30s of the last century by William Firth Wells. It is summarized, among other things, in his bookAirborne Contagion and Air Hygiene. An Ecological Study of Droplet Infections(Harvard University Press, 1955).
Pepijn van Erp by kloptdatwel.nl
and a little further on in a Comment:
Nowhere have I claimed that Wells' research would prove that that 1.5m is effective in SARS-CoV-2.
Pepijn van Erp in a comment below the article
The fact that such a transparent defense then also receives support from the "intelligentsia" hanging around there does close the door for good. Not to reason with. I'm a bit hesitant to write this down because they can be really vile, that may take energy and maybe even time.
Belgium: Mattias in Seppland
[Here I have removed two introductory paragraphs; they were not correct. With apologies to Brecht Decoene. See the corrigendum below.]
R E C T I F I C A T I E
A "technical error" made it look like Mattias Desmet was responding to deleted comments. I then drew wrong conclusions about the removal of the comments and the one addressed by Mattias: Brecht Decoene. Reason for Brecht (moral scientist, skeptic, author of two books on conspiracy thinking and member of the board of directors of SKEPP) to draw my attention to this. Thanks for this.
Corrected here: Brecht had nothing to do with the absurd story in which Mattias reports on his decision not to enter into a public debate with (one of the) two SKEPP members anymore.
Incidentally, I sympathize with Mattias: a public conversation makes no sense at all. That's only going to be bickering because they won't accept each other's authority on the actual state of the virus. Anyone who listens to both gentlemen can conclude that they both think in the same way perhaps in the same way, with the same norms and values but from a different world of facts. So they do not differ so much as they have a different view of scientific reality. As a result, every philosophical conversation becomes worthless. It marks the parallel society that has emerged. On the one hand people who believe the narrative, on the other hand people who know the narrative but approach it critically and therefore weigh it against other sources (which also carries risks by the way!).
At first glance, a spectacular initiative: a public debate between Maarten and Mattias. Yet it is not, it is pointless. Confronting Maarten Boudry with Mattias Desmet is no more than organizing an ordinary cockfight, in search of sensation. Maarten Boudry in conversation with Theo Schetters on the other hand or with Geert Vandenbossche, that would be interesting! Then Maarten can explain to Theo or Geert why the virus is indeed deadly and that all measures were proportional, face masks worked, one and a half meters was essential and vaccines are a blessing for humanity. And if Geert and Theo agree, then to Mattias to explain how it is.
Below is the text by Mattias Desmet, in which he explains why he refrains from such a public confrontation.
Hello Brecht,
Sam and I have made every effort in the world to organize a debate with Maarten and Joël De Ceulaer.
First we would do that in The New World.
But then Joël let it be known that he still thought that was too dangerous if it went on indoors.
Then I suggested to organize it in my garden, on the terrace. Joël thought that was worth considering, but he wanted to know how much distance there could be between the seats.
When that distance turned out to be acceptable, Joël wanted to know if Jorn Luka allowed him to wear a mask during the recording. Jorn Luka thought it was ok and so it looked like it could continue.
But then Joël turned out to still have a demand: Sam and I also had to wear a mask. Sam and I then said that although Joel could choose whether or not to participate in the conversation, Sam and I would not wear a mask in the open air, meters away.
Joël then announced that he would not participate under those circumstances. He felt that Sam and I, perhaps unvaccinated and unmasked, were too dangerous and also ill-mannered.
Then I suggested to Maarten to talk to him alone, in The New World. Everything was arranged, but Maarten then announced via email that he would ask the question whether I was vaccinated or not. That question, he announced, he would ask during the broadcast. I think you could already see enough of what a level the conversation with Maarten would be.
Add to that the fact that Maarten tries to put me in a bad light from at least one false profile and made a series of emotional outbursts to me in opinion pieces and I drew my decision: Maarten is welcome to speak to me in private, but I am not going to engage in a public mud fight where there is no respect for privacy (questions about vaccination status are asked) and there is hardly any serious substantive debate.
I have never told this whole story until now, simply because those things were discussed through personal communication and I basically do not make personal communication public. However, I no longer feel bound by that principle because Joël De Ceulaer told us on Twitter this week that we (Sam and I) had withdrawn from the debate. This has corrected this. And don't think this is just my version of the story. The entire communication I describe was conducted by e-mail. I checked it a moment ago: I still have all the e-mails. With this you also hear the other side of the story.
I read the pieces.
people goodness, that dares to call itself skeptical.
unfortunately I found no possibility to respond.
a reference to the current state of knowledge should make those inepts rise to the jaws.
although I expect that will never happen as they are skeptical of everything and everyone except, of course, of themselves.
It remains amazing that people can disagree so much. Especially if you assume that most people in the above discussion have some form of intelligence. Like most readers here, I am 100% behind your opinions and insights, Anton. In fact, they reinforce with facts that I had suspected since the beginning of this madness.
The reality in the Netherlands? flew to Bonaire last week. Formally still a face mask requirement at the airport and on the plane. Apart from a few eccentrics with a face mask (mostly Asians), no one cares.
It is a pity that the criticism of 'believers' (what else should I call them) is rarely substantive, but always plays on the man (who are 'you' that you have an opinion about this? This is also the case above.
I am glad that there are still a few platforms (like this one) where we can get concrete information, and where the course of events is looked at in a healthy critical way. I can't let it go.
Yes, these people prove that they are trapped in mass formation. They have already begun to act as gruesome as possible. I think it's very creepy!
You realize that Mattias' last remark actually confirms that he did indeed call off the initially scheduled debate out of fear? By the way, Brecht's comments are still visible, perhaps first learn to deal with Facebook before you venture into, so to speak, critical posts?
Hello Luc,
What do you read from the last comment? Or do you see in "no sense in mud throwing" an expression of sudden fear?
For me, Brecht's comments are not visible. I'd love to hear how I can fix that; apparently that has to do with my clumsiness with Facebook.
Your tone amazes me!
Hi Anton, at Desmet the comments are strangely arranged. Think it's something about his settings. You have to select 'all' at the top (where it also says 'most relevant' or 'latest'). Then you see them all. Brecht's are indeed there. But he was referring to the debate with Boudry that Desmet cancelled, perhaps because he didn't want to come alone? No idea. In any case, Brecht did not refer to a debate with Brokken or JDC bij. It is Desmet who started talking about this.
I've seen it, there are two "invitations" mixed up. Do I understand correctly that Mattias refers to that rather comedy with caps, distance and personal questions to indicate why he does not like such a second "invitation"? I can understand that – or have I reversed the order?
A little late on this party complaining about 'the skeptics', but I only just see this post for the first time.
First of all, about the laudatio of SKEPP. You only give the introductory paragraphs and suggest that the wide-ranging description in them of the entire spectrum of corona skeptics are also considered applicable to Desmet by SKEPP. You do that with the phrases: "The bold reproaches are also in direct contradiction with the views of Mattias Desmet" and "The rose highlighted terms are simply statements that he never made and in no way supported."
This is a false frame, because immediately after these paragraphs it is explained very specifically what Desmet claims and why SKEPP distinguished him for it.
Then you have something to complain about how in the comments on Klopt datwel was discussed under my article about the first performance of Willem Engel at Café Weltschmerz. You are surprised that there is hardly any moderation. However, none of the four examples of comments are about the letter that determined our rules of conduct. (And I haven't seen anything of a specific complaint via email to the editors either.)
You would have sent an email about this to Nienhuys – secretary of Skepsis, not the chairman. I only know about cancelling you as a donor (because of disappointment in "your non-skeptical and unscientific attitude in the corona controversy"), which is a bit strange, because at that time I think there were only two pieces published in Skepter about (conspiracy theories about) corona: https://www.skepsis.nl/blog/2020/02/coronavirus-mythes/ and https://skepsis.nl/coronacomplotten/ of which I can not immediately imagine that you would have been so opposed by now.
But anyway, for the sake of convenience, I assume that your dissatisfaction was caused by my article about Engel op Kloptdatwel (formally that does not fall under Stichting Skepsis) and especially my criticism of the reasoning of Maurice de Hond regarding aerosols.
My comment about Wells' book really takes you out of context. Here is my full comment, the portee of which is also in the update below the article. I also explained it this way in mail to Maurice [even before my more extensive piece appeared on FTM] and in the comments on his site, when he was whining about it. The point was that Engel pretended that the 1.5 m had been invented on the spot by RIVM or WHO, while that idea of keeping a distance as a measure has a pretty long history and Wells was also mentioned in (at the time) recent newspaper articles about the corona measures.
"In particular, the fact that we have hardly seen any spread within hospitals is very much against the idea that aerosol spread would be the most important."
as they say in the USA: that one did not age well...
but just to mention that this is the case, the gentleman of erp apparently goes too far.
the gentleman of erp, like so many amateur virologists and beer mat calculators, probably doesn't mean it wrong?
and I'd like to take this response from Eli and here again out of the closet.
"Well, Mr. van Erp. Are you going to do your homework and read the short article by Maurice de Hond? He did read Wells' 1955 book, which you're talking about. After all, you wrote yourself, "Because I have not yet been able to see the book myself ...". There is really nothing to argue against the quotes he mentions and his substantiations. Unfortunately, you yourself have drawn the wrong conclusions from the book, but that is not so strange if you have not read it.
If you have any dignity, make a correction immediately.
It's not bad at all to be wrong! What is a pity, by the way, is your tone. Someone who starts an article by playing the man and trying to bring someone down because he is now 'just a dance teacher', immediately makes me doubt the content of the article. After all: if you had really had good substantiations, it would not have been necessary to question someone in such a way, would it have been? The intro about Willem Engel does not show respect. I don't hear him, on the other hand, bringing people down like that."