Ode to Jan Bonte

When I first read an article by neurologist Jan Bonte (only October 2020) he actually lost me immediately. At the time, I thought that was reprehensible and played on the man: he burned Maarten Keulemans in a way that I found unwise and distasteful, counterproductive and a poor defense of the good cause I was trying to fight with reason. At the time, I clearly didn't realize what Maarten Keulemans actually stood for and how stupid he really is. If it's not out of silliness, what he's doing is evil and especially harmful because of his prominent place in the Volkskrant. If only Jan were in the right place, at least he represents a way of scientific thinking and often writes wonderful pieces, sharp and substantiated. A provocative fun blogger with knowledge.

In addition, I now recognize better that writing a blog out of passion is partly a therapeutic activity. Then it is sometimes difficult not to let the emotion take over. In general, I enjoy Jan's articles by now. The day before yesterday, for example, he posted Ask Marion 1 in which he describes exactly how I - and I suspect many with me - have experienced the past year, falling from one bewilderment to another. Read! Repeatedly, I share his Postscript Vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus – Part 3 But even friends I consider to be independent intelligentsia have a problem with that. After all, any reference to WWII is not done, at least among decent people. Political correctness is always lurking and that acts as a smokescreen in view of the real problem. Not so with Jan B. Hommel.

Jan Bonte thinks surprisingly out of the box, which doesn't mean that I always agree with him.

An asymptomatic disease is not a disease

Last week he posted the translation From an article on lockdownsceptics.org: How did a disease with no symptoms take over the world? He notes that he wishes he had written that article himself, that's how good he thinks it is. Unjustified, because I usually think his own pieces are better put together. In this piece, I see a gaping hole that is being circled.

The basic idea is appealing and fits in well with a meme that was circulating a while ago, retweeted by Wout Weghorst, among others: "Imagine, there is a vaccine that is so safe that you have to be threatened to take it, against a disease that is so deadly that you have to be tested to know you have it".

The core of the piece is that there are more asymptomatic viruses, glandular fever for example, for which we do not test the entire population. So asymptomatic means testing is pointless. That reasoning would then apply to diseases of which 85% of those infected are asymptomatic, such as with Covid. In that case, you should focus only on the sick. But if that 85% get a runny nose, a week after infection, what then? Then the whole 'asymptomatic disease' concept no longer applies, because then there are symptoms. Are you suddenly going to act differently?
Another case: also an 85% asymptomatic virus infection but now with an IFR of 15%. We just don't know because we don't test, so the IFR seems to be almost 100%: if someone becomes visibly ill, they almost always die. Routes of infection can be found, but the intermediaries can only be reconstructed afterwards, via healthy people. There is no test to warn these intermediaries in time, they turn out to be carriers afterwards. Are we so much better off?

Jan at Café Weltschmerz

Definitely check it out if you haven't seen it yet. There is a calm and thoughtful discussion about vaccination by neurologist Dr. Jan Bonte (also known as Jan B. Hommel), Dr. Jan Vosters, former director of GGD Zuidoost-Brabant and Frank Roodenburg, general practitioner.

Now Jan Bonte says in this conversation that more young people die from glandular fever than from Covid. I have not been able to verify that, I have not read anything about it anywhere, but I have been able to report on long-term effects that can be linked to certain types of cancer, but the numbers are not comparable to Covid either. I would like to ask him, he must have studies on this. The conversation confirms just about everything I wrote last year, so not much new under the sun for VV readers. But now from the mouth of a former head of GGD, a well-read and well-informed neurologist and an experienced general practitioner. Fortunately, I didn't write any nonsense last year, if I can believe these people.

Des Pudels Core

Asymptomatic or not, it ultimately comes down to the question: how many people are allowed to die? If that's a high percentage of the population, you start looking for the cause. If you find a cause, you will try to detect, isolate and prevent it prematurely. That may well be a substance that some people carry with them. If you see that coming, you try to get ahead of it. I don't think that's wrong. Suppose you suddenly have an inexplicable infection mortality and it turns out to be in the water pipe, then you are going to tackle the supply of that virus (or bacteria), even though the pipe system has no symptoms, right?

In my opinion, the real problem is not the asymptomatic disease; It is the stupidity with which the problem is combated. Ineffective and disastrous. It is the unscientific incompetence (with a nonsensical virus detection test instead of an infection test), the obvious stupidity, the obstinacy, the civil service science, the intertwining of interests of politics, journalism, science and the judiciary. Especially politically – and we have ourselves to blame for this: in the end, we ourselves elect incapable administrators who allow all this to happen. They're not leaders, they're not visionaries or people of ideas. It is the stupidity of democracy, the stupidity of our freedom.

Our policymakers are managers, polderers, compromise sponges who are guided by irrational fairy tales and doomsday scenarios with the resulting hysteria. Hence the bio-mass idiocy, benefits and OMT affairs, Sywert scandals and climate tables. As a result, sensible and effective co-solutions such as ivermectin are still not being seized.

The parallel with the refusal of nuclear power comes to mind. That, too, should have been part of the solution mix with which we tackle the gigantic problems in question a long time ago. But then there are laws in the way, and practical objections, and also melancholy, which no one can explain.