Mattias Desmet deed op Facebook gedetailleerd verslag van de inspanningen om een gesprek te organiseren met enkele leden van SKEPP, de Belgische evenknie van onze Stichting Skepsis. Mattias vertelt waarom er geen debat kwam tussen hem en Sam Brokken ("critici") en Martin Boudry and Joel De Ceulaer, in België bekende "SKEPPtici". Hieronder volgt dat verslag, ingeleid met mijn gedachten over de zelfverklaarde 'skeptici' niet alleen in België maar ook in Nederland.
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 "diegene die zich uitzonderlijk onkritisch heeft opgesteld en de popularisering van kennis en wetenschap totaal verkeerd heeft begrepen". Hieronder twee paragrafen uit het verslag van die prijsuitreiking. Ik heb zelf de punten vetgemaakt waar de 'SKEPPtici' het wetenschappelijk gezien bij het verkeerde eind hadden in hun fanatieke strijd tegen rechtgeaarde kritische denkers die op basis van wetenschap het juist goed zagen of in elk geval de juiste vragen stelden. En nee - niet achteraf: we wisten het toen al, vandaar juist de controverse (de betere blogs hebben artikelen waarmee sinds medio 2020 een tijdlijn van de stand van zaken is te reconstrueren).
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.
De vetgedrukte verwijten zijn bovendien ook regelrecht in tegenspraak met de opvattingen van Mattias Desmet (en ik vermoed met die van de meeste van de selecte groep trouwe virusvaria-lezers). De rose gemarkeerde termen zijn simpelweg beweringen die hij nooit heeft gedaan en op geen enkele manier heeft ondersteund. De 'skeptici' permitteren zich onder het mom van superieur wetenschappelijk denken ongegeneerd persoonlijke aanvallen en generalisaties.
"Er waren in het (eerste) coronajaar 2020 dan ook veel kandidaten voor de Skeptische Put. Velen daarvan waren al eerder gekend: de mensen who are against vaccinations, those who suspect conspiracies behind everything - en dus nu achter de virale uitbraak, achter 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 werd. (Een aantal experten dachten inderdaad helemaal in het begin januari 2020, dat het 'maar' een nieuw griepje was. Zoals dat gaat in de wetenschap hebben zij dat idee op basis van de onmiskenbare sterftecijfers snel weer teruggenomen.) Het face mask would not help. The measures to physical distance and you handen 'kapot te wassen' waren nutteloos and even harmful. We had to let the virus take its course en dat er dan wat meer ouderen zouden sterven moesten we er maar bij nemen. Dood hout mocht gesnoeid worden, de natuur is hard, daar valt toch niets aan te doen."
Het zijn generalisaties die zij nog steeds "ongewijzigd verkondigen ondanks het voortschrijdend inzicht van wetenschappers, van zowel virologen, epidemiologen, als psychologen en sociologen". Dit is trouwens een van hun eigen kritiekpunten aan het adres van Mattias Desmet. De pot verwijt de ketel...
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 Nederland strijdt de Stichting Skepsis sinds twee jaar voor kwakzalverij en pseudo-wetenschap. Ja je leest het goed: niet 'tegen' maar 'voor'. Onder kwakzalverij schaar ik zelf de waanzinnige claims die bijvoorbeeld over de vaccins, immuniteit en afstands- en waterrituelen zijn gedaan door overheden en gezondheidsfunctionarissen. Pseudo-wetenschap zijn de rapporten van Pfizer en de goedkeuringsprotocollen van FDA en EMA en CBG. Voor mij was dat reden om mijn inmiddels decennialange donateurschap op te zeggen.
Hoe verwant ik mij ook dacht te voelen met hun toon, hun scherpte en hun wetenschappelijke aanpak: toen ik op het forum van kloptdatwel.nl van gedachten probeerde te wisselen over de corona-misstap, trof ik daar een toxische beerput van een paar dik doende bangerikken. Ze spreken elkaar bij voorkeur met U aan en bestoken de argeloze bezoeker met ad hominems van het soort "U heeft geen medische opleiding dus U weet niet eens waarover U praat. Wie bent U eigenlijk?" en dat wordt dan uitgespeeld tegen "de excellente wetenschap van het RIVM". Een bang clubje dat het zo met elkaar eens is dat het wel een samenzwering lijkt om bezoekers zo snel mogelijk weg te pesten. (Klik op de screenshots om ze te lezen). Dat is de Stichting misschien niet aan te rekenen maar modereren vinden ze kennelijk niet noodzakelijk zolang het in de gewenste richting fout gaat.
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 schenkers... Hun clubblad las ik altijd met veel genoegen. Echt jammer: ik dacht werkelijk dat Skepsis een onafhankelijke kritisch denkende club was.
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.
Van oudsher streven overheden en anti-kwakzalvers hetzelfde doel na: efficiënte medische behandelingen. Die twee partijen zaten dus altijd op een lijn en zo hebben overheden en hun gezondheidsinstituten dankzij hun budgetten kennis opgebouwd en zich autoriteit verworven waar de 'skeptici' dankbaar gebruikt van konden maken. Het is een beetje zoals Maarten Keulemans die op de website van rivm gaat kijken of iets wel klopt. Veel verder ging de skepsis van de Nederlandse Skeptici ook niet. En de zelfreflectie al helemaal niet.
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
Dat zo'n doorzichtige verdediging vervolgens ook nog bijval krijgt van de daar rondhangende "intelligentsia" doet de deur toch wel definitief dicht. Niet mee te redeneren. Ik ben wat huiverachtig om dit op te schrijven want ze kunnen echt vilein zijn, dat kost dan mogelijk weer energie en misschien zelfs tijd.
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
Een 'technische fout' maakte dat het leek alsof Mattias Desmet antwoord gaf op weggehaalde comments. Ik heb toen verkeerde conclusies getrokken over het weghalen van de comments en degene die door Mattias werd aangesproken: Brecht Decoene. Reden voor Brecht (moraalwetenschapper, skepticus, auteur van twee boeken over complotdenken en lid van de raad van bestuur van SKEPP) om mij daarop attent te maken. Dank hiervoor.
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.
Ik voel overigens met Mattias mee: een openbaar gesprek heeft totaal geen zin. Dat wordt alleen maar gekibbel omdat ze elkaars autoriteit op het gebied van de werkelijke stand van zaken rond het virus niet zullen accepteren. Wie naar beide heren luistert kan concluderen dat ze beide op dezelfde misschien wel op dezelfde manier denken, met dezelfde normen en waarden maar van een andere feitenwereld uitgaan. Ze verschillen dus niet zozeer van mening maar hebben een ander beeld van de wetenschappelijke realiteit. Daardoor wordt elk filosofisch gesprek waardeloos. Het tekent de parallelle samenleving die is ontstaan. Enerzijds mensen die het narratief geloven, anderzijds mensen die het narratief wel kennen maar kritisch benaderen en dus afwegen tegen andere bronnen (wat ook risico's met zich meedraagt overigens!).
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."