It is impossible to keep track of what there is to read. If only we had a newspaper in the Netherlands with an editorial team that could sort things out on quality and provide clarifying interpretation. Alas – we have to find our way through a crowd of shouting, wailing, preaching doom, whispering in each other's ear and winking mischievously. Just get the right information from that. And there is always a reason for a new information bombardment. At the moment, these are the 1) vaccine side effects, 2) the vaccine society and 3) the rising ICU admissions while the other parameters are decreasing. One by one, the last one with a reading tip.
1. Vaccine and thrombosis
We are now receiving a lot of reports about thrombosis complaints after vaccination," says Lareb director Kant. "But that has to do with the amount of attention that is now being paid to it."
Agnes Kant, director of Lareb
So if attention is paid to reports of side effects, then that attention is actually the cause of the side effects 
. I certainly understand that there is a self-reinforcing factor in it.
In fact, scientists claim that the number of thrombosis side effects was LOWER than you would expect based on normal statistics. There is no better evidence that side effects are underreported – the fact that they don't take it that way is frightening to me.
If you know that things should be reported but those reports don't come in, then you shouldn't be happy. Then you are like the oncologist who rejoices that so few women make appointments because of lumps in the breast. It just means that there is no reporting.
From Previous research at VAERS, the American Lareb dedicated to vaccine side effects, it was found that some side effects were reported in only a 1% of the cases. It concerns innocent or announced phenomena. The highest percentage was 68%.
Well, especially in the event of a death, you have other things on your mind than filling in forms on a website of a foundation whose name you may not even know. Just ask around in the private sphere: hardly anyone does that. Whether the doctor or general practitioner involved does it? Who knows.
Another process is the registration of causes of death, also discussed earlier. Doctors are instructed by the GGDs not to fill in the vaccine as the cause of death in vulnerable elderly people. After all, it was the weak heart, the cancer or the brain hemorrhage that made the delicate constitution no longer able to handle stress. Vaccination then is only "the last push" and is therefore not registered as a side effect. Few GPs dare to go public with this, Bart van Tienen was one.
Strangely enough, you never see that lenient attitude with corona. That has never been 'the final push', while 90% of covid deaths were over 70.
So the link between those vaccines and thrombosis is still debatable, according to EMA, sometimes and sometimes not. And from all that attention you get a measurable condition like thrombosis, OK. Well, from the spike protein too:https://virusvaria.nl/het-verband-tussen-trombose-en.../(message from 3 weeks ago by the way. Go Click here directly to the research report.
It sounds unbelievable: if vulnerable elderly people die after vaccination, it is "the final push" and is not registered as a side effect. If, on the other hand, they test positive for corona, they must be counted as covid deaths, which is not a final push. After all, you can't be too careful..."
2. Vaccine readiness is a driver
The willingness to vaccinate is not going so well. I just (April 10, in the morning) filled out the poll below at De Gelderlander – with Disagree.
[erratum: I was pointed out by an extremely critical reader that your own willingness to vaccinate is different from your opinion on mandatory vaccination for everyone. If I then check the possible combinations:
- Agree with vaccination obligation, anti taking prophylactic mRNA therapy with immunizing effect
It is indeed quite conceivable that people are strongly IN favor of mandatory vaccination because otherwise they do not dare to take it. People are more in favor of mandatory vaccination for others if they think they have a valid reason not to have to take the shot (you don't do it for yourself, you do it for me') - Disagree with vaccination obligation, pro taking prophylactic mRNA therapy with immunizing effect
You can be against the obligation while you want the vaccine yourself as soon as possible (so I have not sufficiently argued this) - Disagree and anti, Agree and pro
Being against compulsory and against vaccination, or twice 'for' hopefully goes without saying. "It's healthy, it should be mandatory" or "It's deadly, obligatory is genocide", both are possible.
In the graph below, it may therefore be that a majority is against the obligation but is currently willing to be vaccinated themselves, although that seems a bit unlikely to me. The majority mainly think that vaccination only makes sense if everyone does it. I have no substantiation for this, other than that the majority is fine with it as long as the whole herd does it.. Thanks Max, for sharpening the sharpness. I have to be more careful with spontaneous last minute pamphlets.]
I think there should be differentiation. In the youngest age groups, the number of deaths after vaccination is in the same order of magnitude as when (perhaps) going through the disease, at least I haven't seen any other calculation yet. There are many reservations about the mRNA vaccinations, which I have listed in the article about the chicken vaccines by Marcel Levi
An age limit should actually be put on it: under 50 years of age you ARE not allowed to be vaccinated!
And then there is this in the bus.
The moment of truth. Barely over 60, very much against mandatory vaccination, fiercely against v-passports and a segregated testing society, concerned about the lousy preliminary phase of vaccinations and conflicts of interest with powerful lobbies... By the way, did you know that the president of the EMA has been a propagandist of the efpia, the united pharmaceutical promoter?). efpia is happy with her career, she has done an excellent job at the WHO and now she is in a key position as president at the EMA. And in terms of content, they are well aligned.
For a burglar, 'guard dog trainer' can be a nice extra income.
In response to the chairwoman of the EU medicines watchdog EMA (European Medicine Agency): Emer Crooke, educated and trained by the pharmaceutical lobby
So called up for the fight against the corona monster. Fearful of misinformation from the official side, dissatisfied with the competence of vaccine proponents... Now. I don't think I'll accept the invitation now, I'll wait a little longer. Does doctor's advice make sense? I have to catch up with some of the doctors I've spoken to so far before they can say anything meaningful about it, so I'm actually curious about the conversation. On to the last topic that should persuade everyone to accept that invitation.
3. Fewer positives, fewer sick people, fewer deaths... More IC!
One of the blogs that I follow with attention is that of Jurjen Boorsma "STAY CALM AND STOP THE LOCKDOWN!“. He posts occasionally and only when he has had inspiration for a well-thought-out and -of course- substantiated article.
I was also working on the subject that keeps many coronists captivated: "all signals are green, but the storm flag is hoisted in the ICUs". Jurjen is committed his latest blog article Several explanations in a row. You can skip my comment below, below is an updated version of it.
What struck me before, Jurjen also mentions:
"We have been asked to make every effort to increase the number of beds and to invest all beds."
Arjen Hakbij, director of the Gelderse Vallei Hospital
Hospitals are therefore instructed by higher authorities to mobilize more ICU beds. Medium Care beds will become ICU beds. I understand that expansion, but how wise is it to immediately decree that that extra capacity must be filled immediately?
Without that filling of ICU beds, the ICU graphs will of course not go up. Admitting hopeless/underprivileged/too old sick people leads to longer treatment times, which is what you see happening. And suppose there really is a peak, what then? You don't have a place again! What kind of policy is that? Of course, a hospital wants to keep every bed billable. But if that turns out to be counterproductive, someone has to come up with something else. That's what we're voting for, isn't it?
Jurjen's article strengthened my idea of the cause of that ICU crowding. Alarming figures are urgently needed to boost vaccination readiness. After all, vaccination is the only way out. That is not malice, that is out of concern and feeling a responsibility to offer protection. Then only the ICU figures are still available.
Are there other options? We have infection, hospitalizations, ICU and mortality.
- Infections: The PCR test cycles have already been stepped up, runny children have already been drawn into the statistics, there is not much more to be gained from it.
- Admissions: de Jonge can hardly make more people sick on purpose, he certainly risks a scolding from the TK, if that comes true. Not good for career prospects.
- Mortality rates: Letting more people die is also a sensitive issue. And high mortality rates can work against you
- That leaves only one indicator: ICU admission. "We have given more people a chance, at all costs."
An additional advantage is that with the expansion of ICU capacity, no one can be blamed for anything later, the defense is obvious: "More care, that had to be done! How can you be against that? There has been a call for expansion all this time! And what's the point of expansion if you don't do anything else with it?" There is no arguing with it for the average journalist.
Faith, distrust or disbelief
It's not about 'believing in' manipulating data. Those dates are certainly correct, but it must be said: I don't believe anything at all (I believe, or I have to forget 😉 something). However, I do look at the line followed so far and what would or would not fit into it from the underlying motivation. I have mastered that from my profession. Then I see that so far everything has been done to keep the fear going. Behavioural experiments are even allowed.
There is lying, manipulation and brainwashing. Major media conduct propaganda. Scientists talk gibberish. All this in good conscience of the clique that really, really, wants the very best for us.
At the same time as the alarm signals from the ICU, a very thick relaxation carrot is very emphatically held up. Where that suddenly comes from, no one knows. It seems like a strategy for behavioral change.
Who gets the cake, who gets the gard. And soon the cake will go back into the box because then we have been disobedient.
I don't see anything unexpected in what is happening. Whether it has to do with 'believing in inflating numbers'? I certainly don't believe in bad intentions. "People need to understand how serious it is and that it won't go away if they don't do exactly what we say!" That's what "they say to each other", the OMT members. They are distraught, their measures continue to succeed in the air because no one follows them properly. How on earth do you make people understand that... Threatening visions of the future and promises with rewards!
I think there is a good chance that it happened that way and it is also in the line of -indeed- manipulations, but not specifically of figures.
The Machiavelli Prize was completely justified.
