Aan de comments te zien onder de Tweets van Maarten Keulemans kan het grootste deel van Twitterend Nederland zich niet zo in hem vinden. Maar het is de zwijgende meerderheid waar hij het van moet hebben. De krantenlezers en de Op1-kijkers. Gewoon autoriteitsgetrouwe burgers. Die kijken geen blckbx of Andere Wereld, kunnen zelf het kaf niet van het koren scheiden bij ON!, lezen geen alternatieve media, volgen maurice.nl niet, weten niet wat Tegenwind is etc. Help daarom met delen, je mag best een beetje je nek uitsteken. Ook mensen buiten onze incrowd moeten weten dat de feiten niet altijd stroken met de content van sommige autoriteiten - autoriteiten op welk gebied dan ook.
Foreplay
After the appetizer that Maarten Keulemans served (served in Ongehoorde kritiek - Deel 1) zag ik op tegen het hoofdgerecht: een proeverij van maar liefst 17 Tweets, een zogeheten 'draadje' vooral gericht op Theo Schetters maar indirect ook op mijzelf. Ik voel me mede aangesproken omdat ik Theo had meegevraagd, wat enthousiast werd begroet door de ON-redactie. Aan mij is verder weinig eer te behalen dus Maarten richt zich op Theo, als een stier op een rode lap.
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
Opening tweet: Maarten Keulemans doesn't like Ongehoord Nederland very much. He asks the authority to intervene definitively.
Now I myself would not be so quick to address the Council for Journalism about the behavior of their icon because I do not agree with him and think that he spreads disinformation. After all, we all think that of each other because that is what disagreement is called nowadays. I will therefore try to keep it to content.
Het inroepen van een autoriteit getuigt in elk geval niet van tolerantie of communicatiebereidheid. En "Medische onzin" - zo zou je het overgrote deel van de coronaverslaggeving kunnen kwalificeren maar daar schieten we weinig mee op. We gaan eens kijken wat die medische onzin dan precies is.
Eerst wordt een ander punt aangekaart: Het ontbreken van journalistieke vragen. We hebben op de persconferenties en in kranteninterviews gezien dat 'journalistieke vragen' allerlei soorten vragen kunnen zijn behalve 'kritische vragen'.
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):
"Ging het nou in om zes uur of om acht uur?"
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 die zin was het dus niet "journalistiek" naar hedendaagse standaarden. Wat we zien is dat journalistiek de autoriteiten naar de mond praat en hun wetenschappelijke rapportages bereikbaar en begrijpelijk maakt voor het gewone volk. Het is meer een PR- en publiciteitsbaan geworden. Dat is heel wat anders dan iets kritisch doornemen of wetenschapsjournalistiek bedrijven.
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.
De kritiek op @rblommestijn, tja... even dan.
Raisa kwam op mij over als enthousiast, betrokken en integer. Ik heb zeker wel aanmerkingen maar mijn hypocrisie-antenne sloeg niet aan - en die is gevoelig afgesteld. Ze is ook niet minder genuanceerd dan andersdenkenden die riepen -en soms nog steeds roepen- dat er niets aan de hand is en dat vaccins alles oplossen. Of vroege lockdowns, of wat dan ook.
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 summary of the color legend and some drum roll for it 4/.
De grafiek zou misleidend zijn. Zwaar misleidend zelfs. Nu roept deze grafiek van Theo bij mij wel vragen op. Die bewaar ik voor later. Over naar de 'zware misleiding' van Maarten Keulemans.
a) Everything before February 2022 is not on it.
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.
This concerns total mortality including corona mortality, which is known because it is updated weekly on the corona dashboard. Maarten is in de war met de niet-coronadoodsoorzaken. Die werden vroeger maandelijks gerapporteerd door CBS en sinds vorig jaar (meen ik) om onduidelijke redenen niet meer, erg laat en ook niet volledig met een enorme categorie "overig". Die doodsoorzaken weten we dus inderdaad niet en zelfs de Klankbordgroep kreeg daarin geen inzage toen CBS/rivm hun sociaal jaarverslag opstelde bij wijze van "onafhankelijk onderzoekje spelen".
Kruiscontroles geven aan dat de de RIVM-cijfers een lage onderschatting zijn (ca. 30% te laag) van de werkelijk "by corona" overledenen. CBS is een enorme overschatting met soms wel een vier- of vijfvoudiging van de rivm-getallen. Misschien dat zij alle "with corona" gevallen meetellen. Dat moest haast wel maar dat weten we niet. Niemand kan checken hoe dat precies in zijn werk gaat en hoe de data-entry wordt geïnstrueerd. En wat er precies tijdens de 'plausibilisering' achteraf gebeurt. In de rapportage lezen we herhaaldelijk hoe onwaarschijnlijk men het vindt dat de vaccinbelastende data kloppen. Dat zegt wat over plausibilisering (het waarschijnlijk maken, checken op aannemelijkheid).
c) Rode lijn is niet oversterfte maar 'meersterfte'.
Een 10 voor lezen inderdaad, het staat er in de legenda bij als 'meer dan verwachte sterfte'. Dat is duidelijk toegelicht in de uitzending. Welk punt hij wil maken is niet helemaal duidelijk, tenzij hij denkt dat je bij 'oversterfte' lagere getallen krijgt omdat je dan alle weekmarges er vanaf mag trekken. Maar er gelden heel andere marges als je langere periodes bekijkt. Ik verwijs opnieuw naar 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.
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.
Ik kan mij geen grafiek herinneren waarin de linker as hetzelfde was als de rechter as. In zo'n geval heb je maar 1 as. Je kunt voor de duidelijkheid aan beide kanten dezelfde labels zetten maar dat maakt het nog geen andere as.
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.
Met twee Y-assen kun je verbanden in verschillende schalen beter vergelijken. Stel je even voor dat de "sterfte" was weergegeven op de schaal van de "injecties". Dat was een rechte lijn op de nullijn geworden.
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.
"Mensen gaan niet dood omdat er wordt geboosterd." Dit is allereest een gecreëerde oneigenlijke tegenstelling (mensen gaan uiteraard ook om andere redenen dood) - maar ik ga niet alle drogredenen opnoemen die ik tegenkom.
Proposition
De geformaliseerde stelling is "Boosteren is niet de oorzaak van de overlijdens". (Alsof er één oorzaak is)
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:
- "Mensen gaan dood omdat er een coronagolf is"
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.
- "de coronagolf is de oorzaak van overlijdens EN van het boosteren"
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 'stukje waarover Schetters zich opwindt' is 25 weken.
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.
Now to the excess mortality:
25 x 200 per week = 5,000 more people died, boven de verwachting. Zware oversterfte in de zomer, grotendeels onverklaard, 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.
Thank you very much for all this research, this is very useful.
Again neat reply, Anton. Exemplary!
Exemplary behavior and the very important consequences.
What is the consequence of doing and possibly unnecessary research into excess mortality? United States.
What is the consequence of not doing research and continuing to promote and use the covid vaccines, if afterwards it turns out that they were not and are not safe?
Celebrities and experts who (paid) advertise the covid vaccine have an example function and the associated responsibility as an 'example figure'.
People thought that was quite normal. Even if no people die or get sick. And maybe people still think so. Below is an example of a dutch citizen who was made aware of the associated responsibility:
Daphne Deckers misled consumers in the advertising of Chupa Chups lollipops. That is what the Advertising Code Committee ruled on Monday. The committee said that in the commercial, which has been off the tube for some time now, the wrong impression is created that the lollipops would be 'healthy'.
Moreover, the advertiser abuses the authority that dutch celebrity Daphne Deckers enjoys as an 'expert mother', according to the committee.
"We are very pleased with this ruling of the Advertising Code Committee," says spokesman Sicco Louw of the Consumers' Association. The union had filed the complaint against the lollipop manufacturer on November 11. "After this statement, we will look more critically and listen to commercials in which well-known Dutch people play a role," says Louw.
Clear story: compliments, again.
Me and many with me, are very happy with people like you! Thank you so much for all the research you do Anton. ! I share your work on my FB every time, and hope that the people who only watch the TV with a plate of food on their lap after work, also find out the other side. Partly thanks to you
Very cleverly analyzed thank you. We may never again agree with each other in the Netherlands about the cause of excess mortality. Hopefully we will reach the point where we do say to each other in a decent way: we agree to disagree.
No Hans, there is not just a difference of opinion.
There may be something very serious going on. That should be sorted out, and it shouldn't be!
(Because : 'privacy')
As long as there is no absolute clarity about the cause of the excess mortality, vaccination will continue, with possibly new victims.
Also remember: a lot of people do not delve into all these things, they have the confidence that the government has properly investigated whether the vaccine is safe, and immediately intervenes when there are signs that something is not going well.
The fact that the government does not want to cooperate, I think, already speaks volumes.
How can you get a password for part 3?
🙂 If it is almost finished, you can just access it and you will receive another email (if you have registered for it).
Bright Anton. Thanks. And especially thank you very much for the good work you do. And no, I don't do mailing lists 😊... but I check your site regularly. 😉👍🙏
Hi Anton,
May I ask you to verify the graph of Theo farters? You already indicated that the graph already raises questions for you. Thanks!!
I am not going to make a study of it, especially since Theo indicates that it is only an illustration of an alarm signal with which the authorities should get going. Not us.
Some shots across the bow:
– It may be that the flu wave that we had then plays a role. Whether vaccinated people are relatively hard hit, we do not know (ADE?).
Again: without data, you only have the statistical correlation. That is precisely the point.
– There is also a fact check that indicates that there is an age delay in mortality: first the 65-80 group, then 80-90, then 90+. How, older, the tougher (that is also a statistic, by the way, as you get older, your life expectancy increases). "So it can't be the vaccination" is then said. Why not? Is that the end of the matter? What did those people fall over one by one, in order of age? We want to know that, don't we? And if that's being investigated, I wouldn't know why we should rule out vaccinations.
It's bad enough that I have to come up with a hypothesis here because you don't get a substantiated answer from the authorities – including verifiable substantiation: the underlying data.
Dear Anton,
I sent Mr Alexander Pleijter, assistant professor of online journalism and coordinator of the Newscheckers project at Leiden University, an email in response to an article in the AD of Saturday 3 September called: 'We check information to help the doubters.' Among other things, I referred him to the Wob documents of Daniël van der Tuin, if he is seriously interested in the truth. I received a nice email back that they would certainly apply hearing and rebuttal, but I am not so sure. I am now gathering all kinds of information to supposedly help him. In any case, I will keep an eye on him. If you find it interesting, I can send you the emails. I'm not on Twitter or otherwise, so please send me your email address. With warm regards, and many thanks for all your detective work. Thera (81 years and not pricked)