The Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into Corona (PEC) is receiving a remarkable amount of attention, despite the fact that it is a rather uninteresting and predictable money laundering operation. There are really corona critics who have high expectations - or expectations at all - about this. Vala van den Boomen speaks of connection, healing and transparency1Vala on X: https://x.com/ValavdBoomen/status/2060373487965855998Peter Baars thinks that retweets of his post (including the word 'pimp' in it) will force the PEC to deal with the questions he has asked2Perch on X: https://x.com/PeterBaars1111/status/2060410710404857903 - It almost makes me chuckle. Marianne and Maurice are setting up a complete website with all relevant media and their own comments, purely around the PEC. Bert Brandsma, journalist at Lighthouse TV, puts all the videos together on his YouTube channel, certainly useful as a reference work.
It's actually too much credit for this money laundering. Virusvaria should take a holiday for a while, I thought, there is no honor to be gained from this; this simply becomes the padlock on the cover-up (you can already see that in the chosen topics for attention) and everyone acts as if the bottom stone is about to emerge. They don't understand what they're dealing with. But I still don't want to miss Marianne and Maurice, I love those people. So we looked at that.
Ik hoorde Marianne iets zeggen als: "Bruno Bruins slaan we over, dat was niet interessant". Dat is voor mij aanleiding om de transcripts eens te gaan gaan lezen. Bruins was net zo (on)interessant en voorspelbaar als Koopmans, alleen had Koopmans uiteraard veel meer oninteressants te vertellen. Zij zat immers overal in, tussen en bij. Zij kan niets anders doen dan volhouden dat zij naar eer en geweten heeft gehandeld; het meewegen van persoonlijke belangen komt niet eens ter sprake. Wat zou ze anders kunnen zeggen? "Ja, pandemische paraatheid is voor de virologie zeker een belangrijke inkomstenbron, met het oog op de dreiging van biowapens. Dat er een keer een incident plaatsvindt, mag natuurlijk niet ten koste gaan van de bescherming van de bevolking. Dus het was geen persoonlijk belang!" Zoiets lijkt mij een eerlijk antwoord maar daarmee zou ze de commissie alleen maar op ideeën brengen.
Marianne and Maurice took turns praising top scientist Koopmans for her knowledge and position. Respect everywhere. The same Koopmans who in 2020 did not know how respiratory viruses spread.
Once again the video, in which she circumvents spread through the air, pre-sorts by zoonosis and casually explains Gain-of-Function research, so that it is also understandable for the viewers of the Jeugdjournaal.
A hospital administrator once explained to me the status of virologists in a hospital. He outlined it as follows: Die zitten een een lab, vroeger zelfs vaak in de kelder, door microscopen te turen en proefjes te doen. Niemand weet wat ze nou eigenlijk precies doen, ze weten niets van patiënten. Als een arts niet zeker weet of bijvoorbeeld antibiotica zinvol zijn, gaat hij naar de viroloog. Zegt die "ja dit is een virus" dan is het bijna altijd een kwestie van uitzieken: het immuunsysteem zijn werk laten doen, symptomen verlichten en complicaties (zoals bacteriële infecties) voorkomen. Er zijn wel wat antivirale middelen tegen bepaalde stammen maar het blijft problematisch om een virus uit te schakelen zonder tegelijkertijd de geïnfecteerde cel te beschadigen. Er zijn wel wat antivirale middelen tegen heel specifieke virusstammen maar ook die hebben niet altijd het gewenste effect.
A virus is interesting as a bioweapon - there is nothing you can do about it unless you can make a very specific virus with an equally specific 'antidote'. To this end, billions are being invested in virological research, also by ministries other than Health (Defence, for example) and from there also via shortcuts such as NGOs because no one needs to know about this. It is forbidden research but the enemy continues with it - should we just stand idly by and let it happen to us when the time comes? This dilemma essentially explains everything.
At the beginning of the interrogation, Bruins and Koopmans raised their right hands and said:
"Zo waarlijk helpe mij God almachtig."
That means: the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So no omissions, no convenient forgetting, no use of narrow definitions to exclude something from the question. Only if the State interest is at stake, it may be dealt with behind closed doors - and remain there. Then the witness has not lied, he has a clear conscience, and it will not be publicized. Everyone happy.
The first perjury candidate: Bruno Bruins
De commissie vraagt: "Waren er nog andere geformaliseerde adviseurs?"
Bruins: "Misschien moet u dan aangeven wat dan geformaliseerde adviseurs zijn. Ik denk dat wij OMT en BAO (Bestuurlijk Afstemmingsoverlg infectieziekten) als sturende gremia hebben gebruikt voor het werk."
Commissie: "Nou, een OMT en een BAO noemt u hè, dat is een geformaliseerde adviseur. Een mail lijkt mij iets heel anders, dus vandaar de vraag, was er voor u nog een andere ehm ja, formele adviseur?"
Bruins: "Nee."
We now know from WOO documents that the NCTV was already involved in the crisis at the earliest stage, so:
- A formally existing government body — no loose mail, no citizens' initiative
- Structurally present at the MCCb and interdepartmental meetings
- Supplier of threat analyzes and scenarios that directly drive policy
- Part of the official crisis structure that Bruins himself refers to
Een rijksdienst met een wettelijk mandaat die structureel aan de crisistafels zat. Bruins wist dat: hij zat nota bene zelf aan die tafels. Maar géén "nou ja, de NCTV dacht ook wel mee." Geen "de MCCb werd ondersteund door de NCTV." Gewoon: nee. Er was niemand anders. Achter gesloten deuren is misschien afgesproken: "NCTV was erbij gehaald voor de logistiek, de uitvoering, niet als adviseur. Dus als er wordt gevraagd naar geformaliseerde adviseurs, hoort de NCT daar niet bij. Dat is in Staatsbelang."
Die "nee" is dus niet onvolledig antwoorden. Dat is niet je beperkt houden tot de vraag. Dat is voor de buitenwacht met droge ogen onder ede ontkennen dat een van de machtigste spelers in je crisisstructuur bestond.
Under oath. And the committee hears it and lets it go - if it has not already been arranged that way in advance.
While they should have known from their own files that the NCTV was in everything. The WOO documents are public. The committee prepared for months - but perhaps they were not allowed to read the WOO documents. Or did they somehow struggle to read through all of them with eagle eyes.
The second perjury candidate: Marion Koopmans
1) Ron knew
Koopmans weet het nog goed: zij hoorde voor het eerst van het probleem in Wuhan op oudejaarsavond 2019. Op een "heel bijzondere manier, namelijk via social media en de krant", vertelt zij de VPRO3VPRO-docu Virus of tomorrow.
Her ties to Wuhan are well known. She has worked with Chinese virologists for years, was involved in surveillance networks, and knew the players in the WIV (Wuhan Institute of Virology) personally. The fact that she only heard something on December 31 is not very credible for someone with her network and position.
Daar komt dan ook nog bij dat collega Ron Fouchier dit wekenlang voor haar verborgen moet hebben gehouden want hij hoorde het "vlak na Sinterklaas, begin december 2019" en "Wij horen dit soort dingen al vroeg". Dat zegt hij in nota bene dezelfde VPRO-docu. Hij werkt in hetzelfde instituut, op dezelfde afdeling, aan verwante pathogenen. Een golden opportunity voor de virologie doet zich voor en daar heb je het dan niet over... Het kwam dus gewoon niet ter sprake of zo - serieus!?
Maar wie weet heeft Ron dat nieuws voor haar geheim gehouden. Ze had misschien al eens gezegd "Ron, zou je daar niet eens mee stoppen?" Hoe dan ook: hij krijgt in elk geval informatie die zijn baas niet krijgt. Misschien hoort dat zo bij illegaal GoF-onderzoek, daar zal de commissie onmiddellijk begrip voor hebben - terwijl juist daar de ellende vandaan komt.
If Koopmans did not commit perjury and really knew nothing and her colleagues did, then there is something very wrong in that Erasmus lab, which works with human-threatening infectious pathogens. What does that say about similar labs in China, for example? She probably won't know that.
2) Narrative protection
Als Koopmans zou toegeven dat ze begin december 2019 al wist van de uitbraak in Wuhan, dan valt het hele frame van "we wisten zo weinig, we waren afhankelijk van China, het overviel ons" in duigen. Dan blijkt dat de internationale virologische gemeenschap (inclusief haar eigen lab) al weken op de hoogte was toen het publiek en de politiek werden overvallen. En misschien ook wist welke virussen er werden 'onderzocht'.
Then the question inevitably arises: what did you do with that lead? Have you warned the Netherlands? Have you called the RIVM? Have you pushed for testing capacity, supplies, scenarios?
Het antwoord zou zijn: nee. Er gebeurde niets totdat de officiële WHO-kanalen in beweging kwamen. Die weken gingen verloren. En dus moet de tijdlijn kloppen met het officiële narratief, anders sta je als OMT-lid dat "altijd in de actiestand stond" opeens te boek als iemand die cruciale weken liet liggen. Nog los van de verwijtbare nalatigheid. Als je nu op X kijkt kan iemand nog niet zijn neus snuiten of Koopmans staat vooraan om op te roepen tot meer investeringen in pandemische paraatheid. Maar toen ze hoorde van het Wuhan-virus hield ze dat voor zich, totdat de WHO in beweging kwam. En dat gebeurde niet op haar aandringen. Waarom niet, eigenlijk.
3) Chinese, privacy and data deletion
Koopmans doet het voorkomen of het overhandigen van patiëntengegevens voor de Chinezen een obstakel was voor informatievergaring. Daarbij vergetend dat complete databanken offline waren gehaald: verwijderd uit de publieke en wetenschappelijke toegang. Dat was geen foutje bij een WordPress-update. De enige reden om dat te doen is het achterhouden van feiten, van belastend materiaal. De GISAID-uploads uit Wuhan stopten abrupt en Chinese wetenschappers die begin januari nog openlijk data deelden, werden stilgelegd door Beijing, het WIV onderging een interne "veiligheidsreview" waarbij servers werden vervangen en data gewist.
As an expert, shouldn't you inform the committee of those facts?
Koopmans conceals this behind 'privacy'. Under oath? I could go on like this. Regardless of the context of which the committee is not aware. It's the world to me!
Sfeerschets voor de context: Qiu Xiangjun en Xiangguo Qiu
Dr. Qiu Xiangjun, also known by his English name Robert Qiu, jumped or fell from a building on February 7, 2020. Where exactly is unclear: the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), or a nearby apartment complex. He worked in bat lady Shi Zhengli's lab. An insider in Shi Zhengli's lab, dead under unexplained circumstances, zero investigation, zero transparency, at a time when the demand for information was beginning to peak. Does that indicate how valuable certain information and its secrecy was? Or are we exaggerating about the importance of that intel?
By the way, let's not confuse Qiu with Xiangguo Qiu. She was head of the vaccine development and antiviral therapeutics division within the Special Pathogens Program at the National Microbiology Laboratory (NML) in Winnipeg, Canada. In May 2018, she received a Governor-General's Award - Canada's highest award for innovation - presented by the Governor General at Rideau Hall. A star scientist.
In maart 2019 stuurde Qiu een zending van Ebola- en Henipah-virussen vanuit het NML in Winnipeg naar het Wuhan Institute of Virology. In juli worden Qiu, haar man Keding Cheng (ook bioloog aan het NML), en haar Chinese studenten, zonder waarschuwing uit het lab geëscorteerd door de Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Hun veiligheidsmachtigingen worden ingetrokken, de universiteit verbreekt alle banden, de Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) vraagt de RCMP een onderzoek in te stellen naar een mogelijke beleidsschending. Er is nooit een officiële aanklacht ingediend. Het is opvallend stil gehouden. Na haar ontslag in januari 2021 is het echtpaar teruggekeerd naar China, waar zij actief is in virologisch onderzoek, onder meer gelinkt aan het Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) en andere instellingen met mogelijke militaire banden. Zij publiceert nu onder het alias "Sandra Chiu". Haar interesse ligt recentelijk bij (m)RNA4Sandra Chiu on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Sandra-Chiu-2216229387 Haar man Keding Cheng is professor/immunoloog onder de naam "Kaiting Cheng".
Official documents, released in 2024, describe that she knowingly shared scientific knowledge and materials with China, lied about her involvement in programs such as Thousand Talents, and used the Canadian lab to strengthen China's biosecurity capacity. The case remains controversial due to biosecurity and possible espionage.
That's the atmosphere you can think of.
4) Vaccination is a reason for fewer measures
"Hoe meer mensen gevaccineerd zijn, hoe meer natuurlijk je ruimte krijgt voor minder maatregelen."
"Hoe meer mensen gevaccineerd zijn, hoe meer natuurlijk you ruimte krijgt voor minder maatregelen" Marion chatters. And the committee takes it at face value. But the vaccinations did not help against transmission. At most, you created a situation in which vaccinated people themselves became less seriously ill - which is fine in itself, but that is an individual health advantage, not a public health argument for lifting measures. The virus circulates just as fast. What space do you create with that?
"Veruit de meeste bescherming tegen ernstige ziekte komt van de vaccins. Daar kan geen enkele andere maatregel tegenop."
Just as Fouchier never misses an opportunity to argue for more investments in his field (the virological component in the development of protection against natural and artificial viruses), Marion Koopmans also knows exactly what she does and does not say to make her field important. And she gets away with it because the committee members are not familiar with the matter. That makes it difficult to ask critical questions.
The concluding paragraph was about the committee composition. I'll save that for later. Let's give them the chance to prove that they want to get to the bottom of the matter. This first session offers little hope in that regard. But maybe they're setting up a trap, only to have it closed at a later stage with more evidence...?5I say against my better judgement
Addition 02-06-2026, from Cees van den Bosch: CeesCees72 on X https://x.com/CeesCees72/status/2061527959643517154
Footnotes
- 1
- 2
- 3VPRO-docu Virus of tomorrow
- 4Sandra Chiu on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Sandra-Chiu-2216229387
- 5I say against my better judgement
“A trap to be closed later with better evidence….”
Well.
Then the whole house of cards will collapse and so many lies and manipulations will surface, that won't happen.
At most, something that will be shown to the public with a lot of fanfare and will cost the head of someone they can miss/want to cut or who has otherwise been sidelined for a long time.
Little confidence in this play.
with unwilling dogs it is evil to catch hares...
Indeed, the right questions should not be asked.
Because it's actually very simple.
We all unfairly had to be vaccinated because herd immunity would not work because the virus kept changing. But 'we' were injected en masse in 2021 with a shot based on the Wuhan virus 2019/2020. While in 2021, after the Wuhan, we already had some new, milder viruses. Even everyone who had been infected a year earlier would have received much broader and longer protection than what you can ever achieve with a 'crippled' and old 'vaccine'. Even with the Mexican flu, it was said that most people born before 1956 had little to fear from the flu because a similar virus was circulating in the Netherlands at the time. So naturally acquired immunity from corona variants will most likely provide better protection fifty years later than the current 'old' incomplete injections.
Another fallacy for getting vaccinated was: 'You can then visit your grandmother'. But being vaccinated does not mean that you cannot infect others. In fact, proclaiming this false sense of safety everywhere caused many people to take more risks, which was made easier because vaccinated people had more opportunity to infect others due to their QR code proof.
NCTV advice can also be found in published documents. Already in documents at Catshuis consultation March 29, 2020.
See below, scroll down to documents March 29, 2020, click on NCTV presentation.
https://share.google/nEfrskhAci9hLGWgw
I wonder whether Aalbersberg will also downplay this in his interrogation.
Cor,
It may be that I am not looking properly, but an NCTV presentation cannot be found there (anymore).
It (still) works normally for me. Can be found under Catshuisstuks from March 29, 2020.
Found. Thanks.
Suspect that Fouchier's memory is better than Koopmans'
He talks in Tegenlicht about the disclosure of hereditary material 2-3 weeks after Sinterklaas. This would mean that it was already known in 2019. Found an official announcement via Australian Holmes on January 10. But I think Fouchier was already aware of it before that.
Koopmans didn't know anything at the time?
Of course it's possible that she was off for a few weeks. However, she was co-author of the Dorsten Corman PCR paper (which was in the works as of January 13th and was formally published on the 23rd, I believe).
Furthermore, it is also remarkable from Tegenlicht documentary that Koopmans attributes the difference between the locally persistent SarsCov1 and the pandemic SarsCov2 (which the PCR test had to distinguish among other things) to the more superficial SarsCov2, which affects the upper airways, instead of the SarsCov1 that works deeper in the lungs. Sounds plausible.
The initial failure to recognize the upper airway phenomenon of the SarsCov2 is the reason, I think, that it was initially caused by e.g. van Dissel it was not considered serious. (Later research in (NJEM) also indicated that both viruses exhibited the same airborne behavior/potency, half-lives, etc.).
It is remarkable that Fouchier had fabricated precisely this effect (targeting the upper respiratory tract) with his infamous bioweapon bird flu (gain of function of H5N1) virus. He had created the airborn for mammals. His ferrets transmitted it via aerosols.
(By the way, the same research was also done in the US).
The association with a lab (Koopmans even seems to speak about several labs in interrogation, also think of Embarek's suggestion about the relocated Huwan CDC lab as a source, very close to the wet market) would therefore be obvious in Koopmans' mind given Fouchier's gain of function research.
Well, it rattles quite a bit.
P.S. I believe that the 'committing suicide' Chinese also had a patent pending on a vaccine against Covid. (Still need to check this)
Nice analytical article about how Fouchier is at least not clear in his communication.
It seems that using fear and then downplaying it (and blaming the media. Without taking the responsibility to correct them in case of misunderstandings) is a proven method in virology to gain attention/money.
With the ultimate: we don't know when, but it is certain that it will come (that new pandemic).
https://www.psandman.com/articles/Fouchier.htm
There was more jumping in China?
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/do-wuhan-institute-of-virology-scientists-often-fall-from-the-buildings-roof/
Nothing positive can be expected from this kind of charade.
Just read this extremely interesting piece: https://substack.com/home/post/p-199784152
We have been ruled by NCTV since 2020 and it is undoubtedly in the service of a cabal that lurks in the shadows.
Nice piece, there are good things in it. I do miss references and the link to the cabal that you mention.
At the top somewhere it says "documented", which is a link to a piece from Bomen & Bos Substack from January 21, 2023 in response to WOB documents (Influencing the behavior of citizens on a large scale). That is the only link and unfortunately responding is only possible for subscribed readers.
And unfortunately, I'm not talking about “the” but “a” cabal. I wish he would really step out of the shadows.
Another very good video, about Italy and the pandemic.
https://rumble.com/v7ajxdg-the-italian-lie-doctors-reveal-what-really-happened-in-italy.html
I was already shocked by the elitist fascism that defined our lives for so long, but this video once again managed to shock me deeper. Thanks for the link.
A friend called me especially from her holiday address to tell me that the corona survey had started. Thinking that I would happily turn on the television to follow the case closely... finally satisfaction... or something like that. While after her well-intentioned phone call I mainly felt that the information gap was completely impossible to bridge. Where do I start to explain what is wrong with that survey? I personally can't watch it without getting way too despondent. Yes, she said, "your great friend Maurice is also there." Just the name 'your great friend' bothers me. She thinks Maurice is 'a conspiracy theorist'. I report back that in my opinion Maurice is an exceptionally nuanced, sincere and loving person. But yes... D66 and the NRC have left deep marks over the years.
But there is hope. Another friend read a 'conspiracy' story on the train at the beginning of the Covid period and everything fell into place differently because of that one story. When she got off the train again she was a 'wappie'. I call it 'wappie' because that name most easily indicates which information flow someone recognizes themselves in.
Elizabeth,
I have stopped convincing people that there is other information, a different reality than that of the MSM... It made me despondent and sometimes angry because of the condescending reactions such as "you are certainly a Putin lover too" etc.
Let them go, the believers. Maybe, just maybe, there will come a time when they will realize what is really going on.
For those who had not yet seen it: Addition/extension 02-06-2026, by Cees van den Bosch: CeesCees72 on X https://x.com/CeesCees72/status/2061527959643517154
A very good observation, Pjotr. Supposedly vaccinated people will show different behavior. They are “safe from others,” and they have been told so. While the EMA (and Pfizer), among others, knew that the syringes were not intended for this, their 'endpoint' was to reduce the risk of serious illness. Well, well.
Are we going to hear anything about this in the survey?
What I find very unfortunate is that what David Martin said during his presentations in Brussels, among others, receives little attention. The patents on dangerous pathogens, the associated “solutions”, the money flows…”unless we are having this discussion, we are having the wrong discussion”. So don't waste energy on aerosols, face masks and lockdowns. Follow the money. We were told in 2015, listen to Martin.
I'm curious how those poor pangolins are doing... they deserve an apology. Including the bats.
Don't forget the raccoons!
Oh yes! No, they also get an award. Nice idea for certain “respondents”: they will receive The Pangolin Award 2020. Or The Racoon Award. People, people anyway.
That's quite essential, yes. If the 'vaccinations' do not prevent infection, at least not 100%, then the CTB (Corona Access Certificate) is abject (of course it is anyway). The joke is that people already knew that back then. But because of cognitive dissonance, people like the genius De Jonge didn't make that connection.
By the way, I am of the opinion that the argument of becoming less ill was only used when it turned out that the 'vaccines' did not prevent transmission. Call me old fashioned, but I assumed that a vaccine is intended to prevent people from contracting a specific infection. If vaccines do not stop transmission but reduce symptoms, it is not a vaccine but a medicine.
De Grote Denker Hugo vertelde ons dat we ons uit de ‘pandemie’ zouden vaccineren. Dit is ook weer de grootst mogelijk flauwekul maar half Nederland hing aan zijn lippen en liet zich aanpraten dat de ongevaccineerden de schuld waren dat er helaas toch weer een lockdown moest komen. Een vaccin dat besmetting niet voorkomt. Dat is dus gewoon een vaccin dat niet werkt. Is er enig bewijs dat mensen minder ziek werden van de ziekte die we Covid-19 werd genoemd? Of was het een drogreden om mensen te bewegen alsnog hun 37ste booster te halen?
Dear Cees, no matter how well-intentioned, unfortunately there are many misinformation questions and suggestions about vaccines and vaccinations in your response. I also saw something on Maurice's site about hyperventilation and low saturation values (it is even higher...) which is not correct. Marion K. also started in her defense about the fact that many people (in her view, almost everyone except herself) were proclaiming nonsense and with this kind of thinking, people like Marion and Maarten have sticks to hit with, while there are many critical experts.
Can you name something, c? I like to learn from it.
I think the expectations of what a vaccine should be (and what it once was) are quite a point for discussion. The evidence that people become less ill from Covid is indeed shaky, especially if we look at the net in the longer term. What thoughts do you mean?
That of the 37th booster – that is of course not correct 😉
That 37th booster was obviously a joke. Although…. what is not yet may come. I don't quite understand C's response either. I think I'm using pure logic.
Ending a pandemic through a vaccination campaign is nonsense. Never happened before either. Only in Hollywood movies. The script of the film 'Contagion' has been almost completely followed. If you wanted to achieve that, it would only work with a vaccine that prevents infections. So the assumption in the beginning was that the 'vaccines' would prevent infection. It was sold by Rutte & Co. If it then turns out that the 'vaccines' do not or hardly prevent infection, you would logically have to adjust the approach. Mass vaccination does not eradicate the virus, nor does it squash the virus (Rutte). In any case, it is impossible to completely eliminate something like this. The Chinese tried and it didn't work there either. You could call it disinformation or propaganda.
I'm curious where you see that disinformation in my response, c:-). The bottom line is that there is no scientific basis whatsoever for injecting people en masse with a product that was put together in record time and that was approved with a frenetic emergency regulation. And only because there were no other treatment methods. There were, of course, but they were deliberately ridiculed (horse dewormer).
Back to the question: is it strange to assume that vaccinations are given to prevent infections?
Yes, that's strange. You cannot prevent a disease (through a vaccine) if the vector that is said to be the cause of the disease (ie a virus) has never been proven/does not exist.
Read or see the viral delusion, a 5-part docuseries available via: https://theviraldelusion.substack.com/p/the-viral-delusion-episode-one-behind
the series follows my thoughts on the existence or otherwise of viruses. A slow awakening process... If you want to start the series blank (without prejudice), I recommend part 5 (about the history of the origins of HIV->AIDS), that episode is perhaps less 'heated' than the origins of Sarscov2->covid (in which people have invested heavily, even above the line [we remain critical], and let themselves/the reader believe that viruses exist.)
The train of thought is as follows.
1. Viruses exist and HIV causes AIDS (the Fauci doctrine)
2. Viruses exist, but HIV does not cause AIDS (the Peter Duesberg doctrine)
3. Viruses do not exist, therefore HIV does not exist, and therefore cannot cause AIDS (Stefan Lanka doctrine)
The problem - but maybe I'm talking too much about myself now - is different: my problem is that I believed in Ad 1 for a long time (it was in the textbooks, textbooks are never wrong, I was tested on it, thinking otherwise was impossible), when I finally took a moment for myself and thought: 'It's strange that risk factors for HIV adhere so much to national borders: heterosexuality in Africa, homosexuality in the US, etc.' I leaned towards Ad 2 (AIDS is caused due to environmental factors such as poverty/poor living conditions, which leads to immune suppression or risky behavior such as drug use (which leads to immune suppression), not due to HIV, but HIV does exist (it is a harmless virus). Ad 3 also took me a while, but my final judgment is still ad 3 (viruses, I don't know whether they exist - just like I don't know whether aliens exist - but they have never been proven!)
The problem why ad 3 is so difficult to accept is because it concerns a taboo idea, 'what, you don't believe in viruses???!' after which you are supposed to shrug your shoulders laughing and think: 'those conspiracy theorists always go too far in their ideas. Soon they will tell me that we have never been to the moon or that the earth is flat! Hahaha.'
But you just have to be brave, bite through that cognitive dissonance, so to speak, and really think about viruses, then you will automatically arrive at ad 3 (even without seeing the viral delusion).
Finally..
Traditional vaccines against pathogens contain some pathogen and the idea is that the immune system produces antibodies so that it recognizes this pathogen during the next encounter, so that people do not or hardly become ill. This is how I was taught during my studies in healthcare and during the initial phase of the hepatitis B injections in the early 1980s. No matter how harmful some things are and how widely opinions differ, the corona shots are indeed not vaccines. Of course all opinions are welcome, but I try to avoid fact-free opinions. I apologize if I seem too scared, but I never want to be on strange lists again, or actually I promised my family that.
To clarify: a high injection rate was (was) the intention. And Hugo knew very well what he was doing. It was never about transmission and the manufacturers never said so. This is what I mean, among other things, by disinformation, everyone was and continues to make off with terms such as transmission... no matter how logical something sometimes sounds, leave this to experts who do or have done independent research. By the way, Maarten Keulemans had corona again last summer, as he mentioned somewhere, I know more and apparently they are still testing... Independent scientific research is more needed than ever, but it seems to no longer exist.
what is wrong?
really and truly?
and this?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8118644/
It is not about hyperventilation due to fear(s) but about research with volunteers and sleep apnea. 1 = none, but as a child of an extremely anxious parent with hyperventilation almost daily, we had a lot of measuring instruments at home after many admissions to the hospital because my parent was afraid of oxygen deficiency and heart attacks. Never found an oxygen deficiency... etc. Take it from me that I have read many studies about it. By the way, my parent died due to the corona measures without having had COVID and no injections, but became malnourished because my parent could not tolerate a face mask due to... a lifetime of hyperventilation and was therefore refused entry to shops. The stores where my parent, after years of struggling with himself, finally dared to go alone a few years before 2020, how proud we were all... my parent enjoyed the regained freedom and immediately stopped asking for help... When we realized that the food was too little and very one-sided, the damage had already been done at that (older) age, etc. etc. I cannot listen to those "interrogations" at the PEC. My other parent died BECAUSE of a side effect stated in the package leaflet for Pfizer's corona shots... To stay informed, I read everything here at virusvaria. I also watch and listen to new media. Thanks for reading and allowing me to share my stories here.
Dear Willem, I hear more and more often that viruses have never been able to isolate and demonstrate. But what is flu and how can people infect each other with… yes… with what? Is it a matter of definition? I find the non-existence of viruses an interesting idea, but I do not understand how something like influenza fits into this picture.