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.
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
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.
In any case, invoking an authority does not show tolerance or willingness to communicate. And "Medical nonsense" – that's how you could qualify the vast majority of corona reporting, but we don't make much progress with that. Let's see what that medical nonsense is.
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.
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 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 "met 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'.
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.
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.
The formalized statement is "Boosters are not the cause of death". (As if there is one cause)
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).
- "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 met 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.
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.
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. 😉👍🙏
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.
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)