Unheard of criticism by Maarten Keulemans – Part 2

Judging by the comments under the Tweets of Maarten Keulemans, most of twittering the Netherlands does not agree with him. But it is the silent majority that he has to rely on. The newspaper readers and the Op1 viewers. Just authority-abiding citizens. They don't watch blckbx or OtherWorld, can't separate the wheat from the chaff at ON!, don't read alternative media, don't follow maurice.nl, don't know what Headwinds are, etc. Therefore, help with sharing, you may well stick your neck out a bit. Even people outside our incrowd should know that the facts do not always correspond to the content of some authorities – authorities in any field.

Foreplay

After the appetizer that Maarten Keulemans served (served in Unheard of Criticism – Part 1) I was afraid of the main course: a tasting of no less than 17 Tweets, a so-called 'thread' mainly aimed at Theo Schetters but indirectly also at myself. I feel partly addressed because I had asked Theo along, which was enthusiastically greeted by the ON editors. There is little honor to be gained to me, so Maarten focuses on Theo, like a bull on a red rag.

After I had gone through the thread of the fierce and indignant @mkeulemans, a scene from Pulp Fiction came to mind:

Everything was wrong. A lot of noise and in the end there is at most a smokescreen for those who do not take the time to figure out what is behind those 17 Twitter bites. Time to blow away the smokescreen.

After the broadcast: the review

First, another point is raised: The lack of journalistic questions. We have seen at press conferences and in newspaper interviews that 'journalistic questions' can be all kinds of questions except 'critical questions'.

For example, after the announcement of a lockdown, I can still remember this journalistic question to the responsible minister: (journalist with pen and notepad at the ready):
"Did it go in at six o'clock or at eight o'clock?"

We, as guests of this opinion program, argued that the excess mortality is not necessarily - and certainly not 100% - caused by vaccinations. If an interviewer then brings in the opposite a few times, that can certainly be called critical, even if it does not fit in your street.

In that sense, it was not "journalism" by today's standards. What we see is that journalism silences the authorities and makes their scientific reports accessible and understandable to the common people. It has become more of a PR and publicity job. That is very different from going through something critically or doing science journalism.

UN! has its own face with clear positions. It is reminiscent of the former VARA, the TROS, the NCRV, BNN, when you could still estimate what color you were looking at. The signature helped in understanding the information. Now everything is brought as the truth.

The criticism of @rblommestijn, well... just then.
Raisa came across to me as enthusiastic, committed and honest. I also have some comments, but my hypocrisy antenna did not catch on – and it has been sensitively adjusted. She is also no less nuanced than dissenters who shouted - and sometimes still shout - that nothing is wrong and that vaccines solve everything. Or early lockdowns, or whatever.

What we as guests at ON! to make it clear that alarm signals are not enough to draw firm conclusions but that they must be investigated thoroughly, and preferably from different independent angles.

Unfortunately, Maarten ignores these nuances.

Tweet 3/ is the enumeration of the color legend and some drum roll for 4/.

The graph would be misleading. Heavily misleading even. Now this graph by Theo does raise questions for me. I'll save that for later. Over to the 'heavy deception' of Maarten Keulemans.

a) Everything before February 2022 is not on it, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
The graph shows the period around the repeat injections. Before February 2022, however, there were no repeat injections. It was precisely with these repeat injections that Theo had noticed the simultaneity, so he has brought it into the picture here. There is also an immunological explanation of how this phenomenon could become stronger with each subsequent jab.

b) Causes of death after May are not yet known, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
This concerns total mortality including corona mortality, which is known because it is updated weekly on the corona dashboard. Maarten is confused with the non-corona causes of death. They used to be reported monthly by CBS and since last year (I believe) for unclear reasons no longer, very late and not completely with a huge category "other". We do not know these causes of death and even the Sounding Board group was not given access to them when CBS/rivm drew up their social annual report as a "play independent investigation".
Cross-checks indicate that the RIVM figures are a low underestimate (approx. 30% too low) of the actual "by corona" deceased. CBS is a huge overestimation with sometimes four or five times the RIVM numbers. Maybe they will all "with corona" cases count. It almost had to be, but we don't know. No one can check exactly how this works and how the data entry is instructed. And what exactly happens during the 'plausibility' afterwards. In the report we repeatedly read how unlikely it is considered that the vaccine-burdening data are correct. That says something about plausibility (making it probable, checking for plausibility).

c) Red line is not excess mortality but 'more mortality', including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
A 10 for reading indeed, it is listed in the legend as 'more than expected mortality'. That is clearly explained in the broadcast. What point he wants to make is not entirely clear, unless he thinks that you get lower numbers for 'excess mortality' because you can then subtract all weekly margins. But there are very different margins if you look at longer periods. I refer again to my basic explanation. The similarity between those curves remains, even if a margin would have been drawn around both.

d) Margins of uncertainty are once again pleading
It's what about those margins. Let it be clear that margins of uncertainty are important in expectations and estimates. However, we are talking about realized, measured figures. There will probably also be a possible margin of error in this, but that is, certainly for this purpose, negligible. And again, it doesn't detract from the similarity of the curves.

e) Axis left is different from axis right, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
If this is intended as a point of criticism, it worries me. And I have already met people that I had to explain it to because if Maarten Keulemans writes it himself, there must be something in it, they think.
I can't remember a graph in which the left axis was the same as the right axis. In such a case, you only have 1 axis. For the sake of clarity, you can put the same labels on both sides, but that does not make it a different axis.
If you really have an axis left and right, there are ALWAYS other scales. That's the only use of two Y-axes. Each axis then shows what is displayed on it. In this case: left injections, right mortality.

With two Y-axes you can better compare bandages in different scales. Imagine for a moment that the "mortality" was shown on the scale of the "injections". That had become a straight line on the zero line.

What was so heavily misleading!? (the Pulp Fiction shooting scene to the fullest 😂)

This is one that's harder to address because you have some knowledge of this. pragma dialectics a combination of logic and its application in argumentation.

In any case, it is an expression of opinion, let's just leave it at that.

"People don't die because they're being boosted." This is at most a created improper contradiction (people die for other reasons, of course) – but I'm not going to list all the fallacies I encounter.

Proposition
The formalized statement is "Boosters are not the cause of death". (As if there is one cause)

Argumentation
The substantiation of this statement is that the corona wave is the real cause of both the deaths and the boosters.
(implicitly: to prevent that death).

So:

• "People are dying because there is a corona wave"

The figures show that this is out of the blue. There were hardly any corona deaths in the relevant period (see calculation later). Even with the CBS figures, you can't get to those numbers yet.

• "the corona wave is the cause of death AND of boostering"

If the claim were correct, a mistake is made against the logic. If the vaccines, boosters and repeat injections work against corona deaths, how can the corona wave be the cause of the deaths? And at the same time? It cannot come from only the unvaccinated, although we do not know that from official causes of death / vaccination statuses, because they are not made available. This can be deduced from hospitalization and ICU data, also internationally.

In any case, it was not what was promised when the vaccines were presented: you should not see a bump of corona mortality in a population that largely rotates in an almost half-yearly jab regimen. (In Part III, this is explored in more depth and is even more pronounced.)

How is that possible, all those deaths? Surely a science journalist should throw himself into that.

Even more substantiation for corona as a cause of the increase in mortality: ICU admissions are used to show that people still die despite the injections. That is crazy because most corona patients in the ICU are there with corona (positive test for the virus), not on account of Covid-19 (the disease). And not all ICU-ers die, certainly not from Omikron because fewer people die from it than from the flu.

It seems like a straw but it could also be an indication so let's start counting.

We had about 25 corona deaths per week, including ICU and beyond.

In the bottom graph, the total weekly excess mortality (all causes of death) is 200 to 300 more than expected, sometimes 500. Per week. That includes those 25 corona deaths per week. Let's keep it at 200 more than expected, to get a feel for the proportions on the safe side. The yellow marked 'piece about which Schetters gets excited' is 25 weeks.

In that period, there were an average of 5 corona-identified ICU patients per day, let's say: 40 per week. I don't really know exactly what to do with that.

In any case, including ICU and beyond, we had about 25 corona deaths per week.
25 x 25 = 625 deaths from corona. If we throw the CBS factor over it, we come up with possibly 2,000, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.

Now to the excess mortality:

25 x 200 per week = 5,000 more people died, above expectations. Severe excess mortality in the summer, largely unexplained, in 'the piece about which Theo Schetters gets excited'.

If you subtract the CBS factor over this period, you are still left with 3,000 people who died unexplained. Whatever margin you use: this excess mortality falls into the category of excess mortality.

On to Part III, the last, promised

Tweet buttons 8-17 are discussed in the last part. In addition, even more comes to light, also with regard to the excess mortality report that is presented as evidence. I still have to finish that and then I stop with that MSM. There's no getting started actually, nor does it carry any weight against the huge exposure that's out there. But this has to be done. In Part III I also roll up the rest of the thread.