In his interrogation, Jaap van Dissel describes how the OMT started, that select group of top specialists, frightened by the media, by information and videos of people falling to their deaths in China (already discussed in an earlier article) and rows of coffins in Italy. First-hand testimony from Italian scientists, doctors and media insiders shows that the fear campaign that made Italy the terrifying face of COVID in early 2020 was staged and did not arise naturally1Zie The Highwire on X. It can be seen from the later OMT decisions that their group think never got them out of that paralyzing psychosis. Furthermore, as far as I am concerned, Jaap van Dissel had little news to report. He did not feel like a civil servant - a feeling that egoists who help build the System will undoubtedly have more often.
As a point of improvement, Van Dissel mentions that they should have relied less on information from EMA and China (at the EMA they had of course also seen the videos and read the spectacle press.)
At the RIVM, they assumed that SARS-CoV-2 could be controlled or even eliminated, because it spread the same way as SARS-CoV-1: via droplets, not aerogenously. Does he now admit that the spread was indeed aerogenous? And it took years for them to figure that out...? The term NCTV had not been mentioned once in the interrogations, nor had 'aerosols'. This does not seem to play a role for the committee in the first period that is now under discussion.
But: SARS-C0V-1, a respiratory virus, which does not spread aerogenously - wow. Shall we take a look?
Aerogenic transmission of SARS-CoV-1
De Amoy Gardens outbreak (Hong Kong, 2003)2Research in NEJM: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa032867
The most famous case of SARS-CoV-1 spread is undeniably aerogenic. The index patient from that location (the Amoy Gardens apartment buildings/skyscrapers) was infected 187 people. The epidemic was inexplicable by droplet or contact transmission alone.
The research found the following:
- The virus-laden aerosol plume was caused by contaminated fecal aerosols from the sewerage through dried-out siphons in the index patient's bathroom.3'Index patient' is not to be confused with 'primary case'. That may have been the producer of the feces, but that trail led to a dead end. ended up
- An exhaust fan sucked those aerosols into the ventilation shaft
- Thermals (warm, moist air) caused the plume to rise up the shaft
- On top of the building, the plume was blown into neighboring apartment buildings by a northeasterly wind
- The infection pattern exactly followed the CFD (computational fluid dynamics) modeling of these air flows
The conclusion of the researchers in the NEJM (2004):
“Airborne spread of the virus appears to explain this large-scale outbreak of SARS in the community, and future prevention and control measures should take this into account the ability of this virus to spread through the air.4"Airborne spread of the virus appears to explain this large community outbreak of SARS, and future efforts at prevention and control must take into consideration the potential for airborne spread of this virus.": Conclusion of the study
Ward 8A — Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong5Confirming the airborne transmission mechanism
Moments earlier, that index patient had visited ward 8A of the Prince of Wales Hospital. Were almost there 140 people infected in one hospital department with an index patient (a pulmonologist after all) who was treated with a nebulizer, a nice driver of aerosol spread. Researchers later performed on-site airflow measurements and simulated the spread of bioaerosols from the index patient's bed. The predicted concentration distribution matched the spatial pattern of who did and did not become infected. So airborne transmission. Droplet contact was physically impossible given the distances and placement of beds.
Virological support
A 2005 CDC study6CDC Study Viral load distribution in SARS outbreak analyzed the viral loads of Amoy Gardens patients upon admission. The pattern:
- Highest viral load among residents immediately next to the index home (block E, units 7 and 8)
- Lower but detectable viral load in residents further away in the plume direction
- The distribution over buildings B, C, and D corresponded to the prevailing southwest wind
This dose-response pattern over distance also confirmed aerogenous spread because with pure contact transmission you would not expect a correlation between viral load and position relative to the aerosol plume.7Note: I would like to know more about blowing over between buildings. Wasn't there a vacuum cleaner salesman or cleaning crew going door to door in the hallways of those skyscrapers?
In summary
SARS-CoV-1 was demonstrably airborne. No doubt. The Amoy Gardens study serves as a textbook example of how epidemiology, airflow modeling and virology combine to prove aerogenic transmission.
Furthermore, a lot of fuss from the committee about the composition and conduct of affairs within OMT, relationships between disciplines, how does establishing consensus work - the questions a high school student asks when he has to write a thesis about something.
At one point Mutluer shows a hint of criticism of technocracy, as if she finds the input too little clinical and too academic, she also misses a broader field of disciplines. For example, the committee discovered that the OMT was not mandated to include the social impact in the strict medical advice. Quite important to know, after two years of preparation.
Maar: de leden van het OMT waren wel breed geïnformeerd, pleitte Jaap van Dissel: "Wij lezen allemaal de krant. Wij krijgen allemaal brede informatie binnen." (alsof je vanuit de krant... etc. etc. Het is zó tergend hopeloos.)
Extensive time is also wasted on the misconception shared by all present that lockdowns would save lives. Van Dissel adds that you must continue to lock down until effective vaccines are available (never, because shots against respiratory viruses have never stopped transmission, as Fauci wrote in his pitch for vaccine injectors instead of syringes).8Morens, Taubenberger, Fauci: [respiratory viruses] "have not to date been effectively controlled by licensed or experimental vaccines.").
The fact that there are at least as many deaths during that long lockdown period as during a short peak is not discussed. The fact that there will probably be more deaths and certainly more socio-economic damage due to the side effects of a long-term lockdown was certainly not considered. After all: non-medical considerations.
The gross effect of a medical intervention on a specific disease is a medical issue. But so should the net effect. I have never heard anything about this - except for the years of life to be lost in the advice of officials and the Gupta report. Undoubtedly neither does the committee. Losing 520,000 years of life certainly seems to me to be a medical issue. It doesn't even have to do with 'disproportionality' (which will be discussed later). Disproportionality is about non-medical side effects. But if medical side effects are also not taken into account, then you could have - once again - euthanized the entire population to prevent Covid deaths. That is panic football, losing the overview, a blinding psychosis driven by fear and group think. Incompetence of anxious, often slightly overweight, elderly men.
And yet the committee continues to whine about lockdowns 3 days earlier. While Koopmans knew what was going on weeks earlier, but they didn't say anything at the time. It's hopeless. It is a vain hope that they are collecting trump cards to play in the endgame. They avoid too many opportunities for that and at the end there is not enough time to explore everything in depth, it is far too complex for that.
Pieter-Jaap Aalbersberg
For this analysis, read the razor-sharp Substack by Cees van den Bos about the Aalbersberg interrogation9Cees van den Bos about Aalbersberg and follow @CeesCees72 on X10Follow @CeesCees72. What struck me was at the beginning of the transcription (thanks for that, @ simplymerels) what the NCTV considers security crises:
"...als ik zo kijk naar de afgelopen jaren waar wij heel lang kortdurende crisissen hebben -en corona was de eerste en dat zien we nu meer eigenlijk- dat zoveel samenhang in de samenleving zit op energie, op klimaat, afhankelijkheden, dat we langzamerhand in een proces komen dat crisissen veel integraler zijn en langduriger." (Aalbersberg)
Let's go through those examples. The crises he mentions are those that have without exception been fueled by policy and media ideology, not by facts.
Energy: nuclear energy should have been launched decades ago (see France), filling up gas wells would guarantee an energy crisis. Climate: climate alarmism was subsidy-driven by the government with - also weather - models that were turned into a dystopian hoax. This is only possible with the help of those who provide us with information about the situation we find ourselves in: the media. Bigger dependence was the result of targeted policies, a dependence on (according to the media) aggressive, unreliable countries with virtually psychopathic leaders.
In that context is Thomas's theorem11formulated by the American sociologist couple William Isaac Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas in 1928 interesting:
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."
In other words: When people define a situation as real, then that situation is real in its consequences.
Fear of a fictional hoax leads to real consequences
The theorem states that the subjective perception of reality is often more important than objective reality itself, because people act based on what they believe to be true, not on what is actually true. It is one of the most underestimated mechanisms in how societies function. Examples?
- Media panic: When media frames a situation as a crisis, people act as if it is a crisis — resulting in real economic or social damage.
- Self-fulfilling prophecies: Als docenten geloven dat bepaalde leerlingen "achterlijk" zijn, behandelen ze die leerlingen anders — en presteren die leerlingen vervolgens slechter.
- Policymakers and fears: De definitie van iets als "noodsituatie" (pandemie, klimaat, veiligheid) rechtvaardigt beleid dat anders onacceptabel zou zijn. Of de definitie klopt of niet, de implications of that definition are material: restrictions on freedom, flows of money, decline in public health, shifts in power.
- Financial markets: The stock market moves on perception, not fundamentals. When enough people believe something has value (or is worthless), that becomes reality. A rumor that Bank X is bankrupt will result in the bank actually going bankrupt.
What Thomas did not explicitly elaborate on but what follows from this: who the information channels, so the definition of the situation controls, directs the consequences. This makes the theorem a key concept for understanding how narratives, propaganda and institutional framing work.12Article: The mediacracy as the driver behind mass formation
Aftertaste
Especially after I saw the broadcast of Marianne and Maurice (and especially the one before that, with Renske Leijten), the fun with the PEC really stopped. These critics wonder whether someone like van Koesveld might have had media training to prepare for the interrogation. But you only become Director General of such an institution if you have completely let yourself be molded into that mold. Then you brief the team that has to provide media training to the visionless will-o'-the-wisps that fill prestigious government buildings. The losers who just can't move up in the hierarchy. That's where everyone has to be on the same page. Or would you think that someone like Aalbersberg also had media training? In preparation for the 'interrogation'? Yes, maybe for the shape.
Maurice spreekt van 'fouten' van de overheid, ook waar het gaat om weldoordachte, doelbewuste, uitvergaderde besluiten vanwege het Staatsbelang, misschien -toegegeven- in lijn met eerder gemaakte 'fouten'. Maar dat zijn op dat moment geen fouten meer, dat is dan een bewust gekozen beleidslijn geworden: niet corrigeren, maar doorduwen. Geen verslagen, geen transparantie. Uit Staatsbelang. Hetzelfde Staatsbelang dat Kadija Arib uit het Systeem werkte, hetzelfde Staatsbelang dat ervoor heeft gezorgd dat niemand daarvoor achter de tralies hoefde of de rest van haar leven in een camper moest doorbrengen (zoals je weleens van klokkenluiders hoort), hetzelfde Staatsbelang dat meer dan de helft van de corona-gerelateerde documenten aan het zicht van de Parlementaire Commissie heeft onttrokken zodat de Parlementaire Enquêtecommissie nog slechts 1 miljoen documenten hoefde door te nemen, hetzelfde Staatsbelang dat vervolgens een welwillend en ambitieus Kamerlid met 4% visie en de beste intenties naar voren schoof om leiding te geven aan het hele proces ("Je hoeft alleen maar mensen aan- en af te kondigen, de eed af te nemen en het woord te geven, en als je een vraag krijgt mag je die mondeling beantwoorden. En je krijgt ook een oortje.") De overige groene commissieleden weten nog niet goed hoe de hazen lopen, zo blijkt uit hun vragen, en van mogelijke of zelfs van de onmiskenbare onjuistheden in het narratief lijken ze geen weet te hebben. De Bomen en Bos Substack van Cees zit vast niet in hun dossier, dat zal terzijde geschoven zijn als desinformatie.
En die arme Marianne; de schat raakt elke keer weer overstuur van het gebrek aan onthullingen. "ZE VRAGEN DAAR HELEMAAL NIET OP DOOR!!!!!!!!!!" analyseert zij onthutst. Maar dat doorvragen op zoiets kun je ook niet verwachten bij een witwasoperatie, Marianne; die moet de mogelijke onthullingen juist toedekken. Daarom heet het ook 'cover-up' in het Engels.
(I do enjoy your rants, by the way, so I'll continue with that. Or take a break first because it's also a physical attack, all that stress. Take an example of Ad Verbrugge, who in a DNW broadcast expressed his sincere amazement at the government's lack of willingness to investigate when he heard about it. Yes, strange, right? He had a point there. And then back to the order of the day. Or take Frank de Rooy, who really thought that his penetrating and critical documentary about vaccination damage, 'De Silte Schreeuwt', had a chance to be broadcast by the NPO. We had a good laugh about it together prior to the film screening in Rosmalen.)
Lessons from corona: The State Interest
In de coronaperiode kreeg het Staatsbelang duidelijker contouren. Het is voor mij niet langer een ongrijpbare machtscultuur met onuitgesproken wetten die iedereen naleeft. Het is niet de beleids-etiquette of een old boys network dat elkaar de hand boven het hoofd houdt, met draaideurbaantjes als incentives en het "I'll scratch your back, you'll scratch mine" die het speelveld van de democratie begrenst. Ja - ook. Maar die cultuur heeft zich duidelijk gematerialiseerd, en wel in een laag van vaste ambtenaren in samenspraak met de NCTV.
No doubt it will be well-intentioned. After all, the most important thing is that the representation of the people must be supported and maintained at all times. The entire constellation of top-heavy departments and institutes is built on that pillar. This constellation must not weaken, even if the original pillar collapses, which can no longer even determine for itself which crucial decisions it can control.
The continuity of the System is more important than the dynamics of the people for which it was once intended. And then suddenly everything appears to be allowed, without control, without finding the truth, without accountability. Failure of RIVM, CBS, judiciary and parliament would be disastrous for the stability of our system.
Corona is too big to fail.
Footnotes
- 1Zie The Highwire on X
- 2Research in NEJM: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa032867
- 3'Index patient' is not to be confused with 'primary case'. That may have been the producer of the feces, but that trail led to a dead end
- 4"Airborne spread of the virus appears to explain this large community outbreak of SARS, and future efforts at prevention and control must take into consideration the potential for airborne spread of this virus.": Conclusion of the study
- 5Confirming the airborne transmission mechanism
- 6CDC Study Viral load distribution in SARS outbreak
- 7Note: I would like to know more about blowing over between buildings. Wasn't there a vacuum cleaner salesman or cleaning crew going door to door in the hallways of those skyscrapers?
- 8Morens, Taubenberger, Fauci: [respiratory viruses] "have not to date been effectively controlled by licensed or experimental vaccines."
- 9Cees van den Bos about Aalbersberg
- 10Follow @CeesCees72
- 11formulated by the American sociologist couple William Isaac Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas in 1928
- 12
'Incompetence of anxious, often slightly overweight, elderly men.'
So it was, combined with the idea of those men - not only slightly overweight, but also slightly too old - that they could finally show through the hosanna channels of the media that they were the moral conscience of the Netherlands. Well, we knew that! 'All those measures are annoying. But it was no different. Everyone should show solidarity, those who do not participate may be excluded, etc.'
‘If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.’
Certainly.
Is in line with this:
‘You can evade reality, but you cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.’ (Ayn Rand).
Thanks for summarizing things. We will probably not agree on the aerosols (above the line) versus the non-existence of viruses (what I make of it). But that's besides the point and there must be something left to be desired.
It's not a summary, just some thoughts on some points.
For a summary, throw the transcript briefly by an AI of your choice. That's no problem and you can ask further questions.
Good tip, thanks!
Funny how fundamentally different your criticism looks from my criticism. but judge for yourself...
Jaap van Dissel interrogation 5-6-2026
The questions not asked:
1. How did the OMT ensure that the medical advice could actually be weighed against other interests? Then, for example, there should have been a qaly balance for the various advice in order to be able to properly weigh this in accordance with the regular policy of VWS (e.g. the refused Men B vaccination and breast cancer medicines, etc. because the costs/qaly are too high). If you know that your advice will be part of a broader consideration, what information do you need to provide so that that consideration is possible at all? Then you have to communicate the standard Qaly methodology to make a balanced assessment based on the same denominator?
You could think of this:
• QALY loss due to COVID;
• QALY loss due to delayed care;
• effects on mental health;
• effects on education;
• effects on work and income.
2. If the OMT was so against closing schools, how is it possible that the OMT was very cautious (and sometimes divided) when reopening schools? Isn't that contradictory?
3. What evidence has been used for the advice to have children keep a distance of 1.5 m? There was literature early in 2020 that children hardly contribute to the spread. Why has that been ignored?
4. Why did the OMT recommend vaccination of children against COVID, while their risk of serious illness was virtually nil? Was this preceded by a QALY assessment?
5. How do you assess that excess mortality in 2021 and 2022 was higher than in 2020, despite mass vaccination? Has this been discussed in the OMT?
6. Has the damage of school closures on children (learning delays, psychological problems, child abuse) ever been quantified and submitted to the OMT?
7. Why has the idea of herd immunity been abandoned so quickly?
8. In particular, how do you assess the model (assumptions, validation) that was used to substantiate the lockdown + curfew in December 2021/January 2022? Why was that necessary in the Netherlands and not in any other European country?
9. How do you assess the fact that the aerosol spread, which was actually already empirically proven in April 2020, still played a minor role in advice at the RIVM until mid-2021?
10. How do you look back on RIVM's attempts to declare aerogenous spread taboo and to downplay its importance (WOO requests, Volkskrant + OVV report).
11. Is it correct that if there is mainly aerogenous spread, the 1.5 meters and especially the lockdown in the open air are not effective?
12. How do you assess that the IFR, which was estimated by Ioannidis in May 2020 at approximately 0.2%, has remained at a much higher number for much longer?
13. What is the reason that RIVM, unlike other scientists, hardly included the influence of the seasons in the models and measures? As soon as spring came, didn't the ICU pressure due to Corona "automatically" decrease?
14. Why did the RIVM go along with the idea of lockdown, while it had been known for decades that the WHO protocols rejected this due to lack of effectiveness and unprecedented collateral damage?
15. How do you assess that RIVM systematically ignored or dismissed external scientists who offered alternative insights? Think of the letter from 100+ scientists about aerosols, the Great Barrington Declaration, etc.
16. In retrospect, do you think that the WHO guidelines were followed too uncritically? You mention the “wrong advice” from the WHO. Why did it take you so long to deviate from that?
17. You were against “leaking” from OMT meetings and advice. Why did you not stop the various OMT members who sometimes appeared on TV almost daily?
18. Has the OMT ever seriously considered early treatment with existing drugs (Ivermectin, HCQ, budesonide, etc.)? If not, why not? If so, on what evidence was it rejected?
19. Why has vitamin D status never been seriously included in the advice, while there was already robust literature on the relationship between vitamin D deficiency and respiratory infections before 2020?
20. How do you reflect on the phenomenon of groupthink within the OMT? You say proudly that there were rarely any disagreements. Isn't unanimity an alarm signal on such complex, uncertain issues?
21. Are there dissenting opinions from OMT members that did not end up in the advice? You say that disagreements were always reflected. Is that verifiable?
22. The OMT sent for “significantly lower than maximum IC capacity.” Why was there no focus on scaling up capacity instead of suppressing demand? Germany had 3x more ICU beds per capita. What has the OMT advised about scaling up?
23. Has the field hospital shame been discussed in the OMT? The fact that emergency hospitals remained empty while regular care was scaled down — was that ever an issue?
Here too, the process was central: who knew what and when? But it was not about the content and quality of the advice and, for example, epidemiological models (or hardly, in the last part?). If a plane crashes, the OVV also investigates whether the bolts were strong enough and whether the altimeters indicate the correct value. Not only whether the protocols and procedures have been followed! That is again the biggest shortcoming here.
Academically speaking: the committee of inquiry focuses strongly on the political and procedural course of events, which means that the deeper, substantive evaluation of the scientific paradigms used (such as the aerosol discussion and the proportionality of the models) remains underexposed.
A good process is beautiful; but if the content is not good, it is still meaningless!
The fundamental difference is not too bad, I think they are all excellent questions. And I also mentioned the QALY point. I only singled out that SARS-CoV-1 point because that was the only thing I hadn't heard before.
Yes, that was a salient but actually spectacular “detail” that should also have led to different insights among the “regulars”.
But those committee members apparently don't even understand that...
I fear that even what I expect will be quite critical interrogations of Hugo and Mark (just as Van Dissel's was) will be cringeworthy for us, because it will be about exactly the wrong questions.
But I'm still very curious... Schadenfreude? Masochism? Don't know. I still can't let it go.
I am also less outspokenly negative about Van Dissel than about that Commission. Van Dissel maintains a fairly technically logically correct story within his paradigm (!) and within his observational bias. However, he is left completely alone, because those simpletons incompetent in the committee do not see where Van Dissel really suffers from groupthink, bias in observations and some errors in his logic.
But also judge my observations for yourself.
I haven't heard that Aalbersberg story anymore. I think that's also completely irrelevant (in my view). Because his role is simply to steer the country and its people in the "right direction" in a crisis on behalf of VWS and AZ, under cover. I think he did that very effectively. But he's not the real culprit. He can only be blamed for accepting the assignments. But hey, you're a civil servant, so think of Hannah Arendt!!!!
==================
Critical Report
His words were very clear and sharp. It all sounded very scientific and logical. But the many contradictions and unscientific statements were not questioned. Van dissel can of course be blamed for that; but even more to the completely inexpert and uncritical Commission that did not ask further questions about this. From the way questions were asked and Van Dissel's answers were summarized, you could tell that the members often did not understand what Van Dissel was talking about; they often could not follow his logic. It was “too technical”, as Van Dissel was accused. And that was not because Van Dissel was telling nonsense, such as his justified argument that an earlier lockdown only makes sense if you continue it indefinitely. He's just too intelligent for those simpletons on the committee.
He emphasizes the uncertainty in the beginning and that the OMT was only about medical and epidemiological matters. There was pressure to expand that, but he strongly resisted that. He believes that the OMT advice at the MCCb should be seen in a broader light with social, economic and social consequences. The OMT has emphasized at least twice that this really had to happen; he did not want to explicitly say that it happened too little.
The Commission mainly wondered whether he should have raised the alarm earlier that it was so contagious and dangerous because emails from modelers were circulating warning about it. He thought that was incorrect; those emails increased the pressure to quickly seek more certainty. He felt that the WHO took far too long to communicate the severity; he only thinks that in retrospect he followed this wrong advice for too long.
He became a bit annoyed because the committee kept twisting his words and suggesting something he completely disagreed with: reacted too late, interests not weighed (it was not up to the OMT). Is he right; very different questions outside his paradigm could have been asked that would have really embarrassed them.
When asked, he says (rightly) that previous measures would only work if you then maintain a lockdown indefinitely in the event of such a contagious disease. You can see from the committee's response that they do not understand the logic of this and therefore do not believe it.
Interestingly, the OMT was absolutely not a democracy. It was really about the content and expertise of the contributors. they are all doctors, with the same frameworks. So they could follow each other well. There have rarely been disagreements. If they were there, this was always reflected in the OMT advice. He thought and still thinks confidentiality is crucial, because only then can a completely open discussion be had. Participants may not be confronted afterwards with their statements, which may have been adjusted during the consultation. He thought it worked well.
There was a lot of whining about the tests. Naturally, many questions about asymptomatic infections. As a result, stricter measures were issued more quickly as advice, and not only in Brabant. And whether this means that action was not taken too late. His responses were technically perfect, but were misunderstood.
The committee does not understand that you can be chairman of OMT and at the same time a political advisor... Pffff.
The political world is completely different from politics: completely different considerations. Van Dissel did not want to interfere with that. Not unjustified in itself.
It is interesting that some OMT members felt they had to sign at the cross. Therefore the order was reversed. But it also points out that apparently the advice was based on the advice that came next. That's curious! Of course you have to ask substantive questions about this; but that doesn't happen.
He felt that his presence was often necessary and perhaps even insufficient in the beginning.
Sometimes questions from the cabinet were not answered because they were "impossible": they asked for too much certainty, or they really asked something about which it is impossible to make a scientific statement. That sometimes made him "irritable". There was enough freedom to give advice in a completely different direction. Unfortunately, no further questions were asked for examples. Here you really see the professor who comes into conflict with the dirty political company. Not for him.
He did not want any “politicization” of questions or advice. I think he means that an advice is not changed in content, but that an advice is implemented 1:1. And he had major objections to that, because it had to be weighed against other matters. Completely correct in itself.
The BAO did not function well: the translation of medical matters into social consequences. Someone from the BAO should also have been present at presscos, and not just Van Dissel with his medical perspective. He thinks “the advice of OMT is sacred” is not OK (vulnerable). The way that went was not sufficiently separated.
The leak from the OMT was hopeless. That gives a very poor image, because the OMT was often followed 1:1. He was very annoyed about that. Of course, he could have expressed this more at the time (but did not ask further questions), but in that respect he was more of a good civil servant than a stubborn scientist. Strange that there is no mention of OMT members who appeared on TV very often.
The 3 goals were from the cabinet. Insight into the virus, maintaining care and protecting the vulnerable. The priority was to maintain care. We aimed for a significantly lower number than the maximum capacity due to uncertainty and safety,
He must not become “technical” for the umpteenth time. Phew.
The committee also asked him repeatedly whether he thought the right decisions had been taken; so no questions were asked about “the right advice”. He does not want to say anything about that: that is up to the committee and politicians to judge. Even though he says he does have an opinion about it [and that is clear to me: he often did not agree with what politicians decided]. He emphasized once again that the OMT has written several times that a broader view should be taken than just medical. He also emphasized that having children has an influence on OMT members: they also saw that the consequences of the measures were very serious. But he ensured that the OMT remained within the field. It was up to politicians to give an independent assessment and come to a decision.
The OMT was adamantly against closing the schools.
It is crystal clear and quite logical within the mainstream paradigm. He certainly does not avoid questions, but is fully confrontational when “wrong”/suggestive questions are asked.
In my view, a very limited testimony by JvD of what happened during corona... Jaap himself, now, is still not opening things up. Indicate something about a too narrow scientific basis on which policy was based, but DO NOT elaborate further. While the examples [notably already at the beginning of the pandemic] were available for the taking, cf. Ioannides (IFR is only 0.2%, much lower for young people), the Dog (transmission is aerogenous, NOT via large droplets or surfaces), treatment requires ANTIBIOTICS such as azothromycin, early treatment with Zn and hydroxychloroquine is VERY effective (Elens, Zelenko).
In my view, a 'bought' scientist, who may have felt trapped by political and NCTV pressure, with an advisory team with blinders on…. pff, what a country.
How nice, Anton, that you, perhaps despite underlying revulsion, muster the energy to follow the interrogations and provide evaluation on this - I might say unique - virus variety site. Personally, I find such critical analyzes and evaluations essential for the great truth-finding process.
If possible, take a step away in an attempt to meta-vision what is going on in this situation of pandemic, surveys and accumulating various crises, not only in the Netherlands but worldwide.
The most fundamental process we are looking at, and which the survey spectacle perfectly reflects, was described in detail by the German sociologist Robert Michels. The core of his thesis is: all forms of group organization (note: ALL, including so-called democracies) ultimately always lead to an oligarchy, the exercise of administrative power by a small group of insiders, who controls the collectivity, or 'the masses' if you like (and not the other way around).
Michel's thesis is known as 'The Iron Law of Oligarchy'.
Below I will limit myself to some personal observations – unfortunately without the much-needed nuances – how the iron law evolves from the original idea of a system of representative democracy in which a parliament controls government.
Erosion of administrative authority
As long as the masses largely agree with the transfer of individual citizen sovereignty to their parliamentary representatives, there will be relative peace in the system. Opposition forces inside and outside parliament also considered the system fair and legitimate. Both power and authority of government were not in question.
However, decades before corona, a process was underway in which the administration, not only the political administration but also that of big corporates (Tech, Media, Pharma, Energy) and now also large NGOs (such as UN/WHO and EU in particular) arrogated more and more power, without their authority keeping pace. At least in the eyes and experience of increasingly large – especially extra-parliamentary – opposition groups. This opposition also notes that it has never agreed to the transfer of its individual sovereignty to bodies such as UN/WHO and EU, let alone to the Big Corps.
Power feels threatened
The political administration, but also that of Big Corps and Big NGOs, feel compelled to use their power to keep or gain control of the growing opposition, sometimes with the use of power (legislation, judiciary [?], rigid enforcement and intimidation [monopoly on violence], technocracy, lobbying, financial power), and sometimes by sowing fear and division (media, framing and narratives). The effect is counterproductive. The erosion of authority is worsening. The experience of legitimacy is shrinking among other population groups.
Parliament is torn. Does she choose to curb the power grabs? Or to support and/or cover it?
It seems that for the time being the Dutch parliament identifies itself more with the exercise of administrative power than with its control. She seems to have become part of the power oligarchy. See the corona parliamentary inquiry here.
Power synthesis
For me, the corona period does not necessarily have all the features of a conspiracy. Although a number of signals do resemble that. Rather, I see a process in which major global power players in the political and social (industrial) field of influence have embraced each other, despite mutual differences of interest, because of a major shared interest: maintaining/increasing their threatened power by all means available to them. Not all bodies and persons who contributed to this did so out of conviction, probably often out of social and socio-economic self-preservation, or under pressure from hierarchical subordination. But it is difficult for those who contributed to it to go back. Cognitive dissonance takes care of that.
Future perspective
With Robert Michels' instructions in mind, we no longer have to have any illusions about democracy as a virtuous administrative concept. In any case, the following concept will not be conceived or designed by the administrative bodies now in power.
Finally, some instructions from a seer living in Russia. No, I don't mean Vladimir!
Before we can see visible change, we first need a change in consciousness.
We only have the rights that we protect. The Right at stake here is ‘Liberty’.
The term ‘national security’ is misleading: it’s not about national security,
it’s about ‘state security’, and these are not the same things.
w.g. Edward Snowden
We are 100% on the same page. Nothing to add or detract from on my part.
NCTV did not participate a little
Still listened to Aalbersberg's interrogation for a while.
He soon cleverly portrayed himself as a selfless oil man (inspired by his MP?) and as a post office box. The latter reminded me of the conduit that MK pretended to be. Although his actions reminded me more of a post office (where not all incoming mail was delivered further)
Clever idea (it's useful to spar with the available media trainer).
His response to the early request from the OMT/v Dissel to take a broader view (Dissel may have heard something from the Quali researchers at his RIVM) was that, as an important spider in the web, he could arrange it in such a way that any ministry he wanted could join the corona discussions at play. Yes. a powerful man.
As an example, he mentions the Ministry of Finance, which joined later. Justice and Security Schoof) and General Affairs (Rutte) and VWS (Bruns, de Jonge and also medical: van Ark) formed the core. Strangely enough, Economic Affairs is missing from his list and it is strange that they carried out those broad qualitative calculations on their own initiative (if I understand correctly).
It would be nice if the committee would throw this at him in the conclusions.
The RIVM/OMT could also have initiated this itself by including one of their health economists in their ranks. Has anyone put a stop to this? Nice question for the exes MP?
A little more about the mailbox. He received from various directions, especially local responses to measures taken; they managed to find him.
VWS was fed up, he suggested that he should increase his tax (partly later due to the much questioning deJonge). Because the NCTV had its affairs well in order (operated a kind of shift system. Did you learn from Schoof at the time of the MH17?) they were able to help out. Well. Later after withdrawal, they were called in again by Rutte (question: what did Rutte actually do himself? Will Aalbersberg become the new Schoof: finally a strong man with transit authority after Jetten?).
Apart from this broader medical approach, including quali calculations, it is remarkable that he experiences and names the mental damage his family members have suffered, but it is dismissed as not measurable (and so he could not do anything with it). The medical figures, such as an R value, were at least hard and he could do something with that (read: implementing measures with transit authority, which should be more powerful in the future. Let's say making that strong man possible?).
Not realizing that these hard figures were based on an insane IFR of 5% and a percentage of seriously ill (hospital customers) of 14% (see, among others, OMt presentation at Catshuis consultation in March 2020.
Perhaps inspired by the UK, Jaap? WHO was already nothing, as it turned out, but the UK was a pretty bad example. There were other, better)
The question that arises for me is who posted to him all those action plans that he submitted to the cats' house meeting early in March?
Plans, as Anton previously indicated, did not correspond with the evidence-based guidelines regarding measures.
I get the impression that these did not come from the Netherlands. By pointing out the differences between various countries and inadequate central European management, he seems to want to suggest that everyone just did what they wanted. Yet this seems unlikely to me. The Netherlands and England seemed to be on the same page (also according to Van Dissel: first letting things go around in a controlled manner did not go very well, and then they fell into the panic created by Ferguson).
Everything went well. The initial response of Germany (initially no excess mortality) and Sweden (addressing citizens' own responsibility and following evidence) remains out of the picture of this Coordinator, who focuses on limited national affairs.
You probably can't blame the man. He worked hard and also had to arrange the holy mass of the Catshuis meeting on Sunday, according to interrogation. The moment when people could relax among us and ventilate freely (he calls it a 'valve function').
There is much more (including his wappie regret) but it is enough for a while.
Aalbersberg sounds a bit like “I only helped with streamlining communication”. But whoever controls the information flows controls the output. An “intelligence service” is not an intelligence desk. Intelligence services derive their power from the information they acquire and control. This is so important that they are even allowed (or simply do) things that are forbidden to others.
By the way, more people have wondered where those exotic plans came from. In the US, quite a song was made about this at the time, they were talking about the snake oil of the lockdowns - which fits nicely with the oil man - but that will probably have been appeased. https://virusvaria.nl/oproep-tot-federaal-onderzoek-naar-het-lockdown-schandaal/
Oil man, snake oil, oh dear: there's the devil in the box again: Rockefeller!
But no. Making analogies and comparisons is of course always allowed, but honesty must be stated: I was not at the catshuis meeting (so what do I know about it), and that of course applies to all of us here. So I'm not going to make those kinds of comparisons (although I think the comparison is neat).
I can relate to the following comment from Cor:
'Apart from this broader medical approach, [...], it is remarkable that the mental damage suffered by his [Van Dissel I think?] family members is experienced and mentioned by him, but this is dismissed as not measurable (and so he could not do anything with it).'
It really reminded me of the story of State Secretary for Health, Welfare and Sport Martin van Rijn, who had to read in medical contact in 2014 that his father (very rightly!) spoke badly about the treatment of Martin's mother in the nursing home. And which Martin van Rijn did nothing with, because yes: it was not measurable. Or something like that... see the full history of everything here: https://www.medischcontact.nl/actueel/laatste-nieuws/artikel/vws-wilde-interview-vader-van-rijn-niet-in-krant
All those apparatchiks (bureaucrats without a vision of their own) are in fact deeply tragic figures who ultimately do it to themselves. They also cause quite a bit of collateral damage. The question I am left with (and it is a question that is asked more often, so I do not claim originality) is: who was/is actually responsible for the policy now that everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else? And why does such an apparatchik not repent when he sees that his own policy has serious consequences for his own environment? Why, for example, Van Dissel did not throw in the towel when he saw what his policy caused in his own family circle. What is that?
Is an order is an order really transcendent, even if it is not clear to the commanders where the order comes from? Is taking responsibility so scary and exciting that an apparatchik, when push comes to shove, always refers to someone else and ends up in an endless fractal? Are those people really blinded?
-I don't know the answer. But these are questions that come to mind when I read the comments above (thank you).
Thanks also for the striking analogy of MK (by Cor, I paraphrase) 'with a passing hatch (which MK pretends to be), although his actions remind me more of a post office (where not all incoming mail is further delivered).' You could also make that of MK: a post office where not all incoming mail is further delivered.
-In all the fuss, I almost forgot that MK would also delight us with an answer to the letter that Anton sent to him, more than a month ago now. Has he already given a substantive answer?
Too many questions from me in one comment, my apologies. But it had to go.
Last interaction:
[14:25, 15-05-2026] Anton Theunissen: And…? Did you have a nice holiday? Looks like you're back full swing again.
The skeptics on the hobby site are curious about your response. We are now three weeks further.
[15:52, 15-05-2026] Maarten Keulemans: Hi Anton! Yes, of course I haven't forgotten that at all. Only: I'm now going to Iceland first for a few reports, including from a village where a volcano could erupt at any moment... 😂 But the answer will come, really. What mainly came up was new IPCC climate scenarios.
My 2cts: The fop arguments have really run out.
Willem writes “What is that?” That is also a big question for me, even a life question, applicable to many things from child abuse to corona measures, etc. Did Hugo have his children injected with the poisonous frikandels? Why are so many children of “rich” “green” parents wearing inappropriate, inappropriate footwear (rain boots and sandals) from the thrift store/vinted? Why have a 90-year-old woman who spends her days reading operated on a cataract when she no longer has a driver's license? The family insisted and a clinic carried it out without question… Every day I have endless questions like this. Naturally, people who do and impose all sorts of things on others are not bothered by it themselves. Every day we had lunch in the tower and every Sunday we all went to the Catshuis and the mob was dealt with harshly, even in the open air... While playing football with my grandchildren on a field, the police drove past two expensive cars, where people were bent over the trunks, close together, trading goods that could not tolerate the light of day, onto the field. The police shouted menacingly at me and the children that we had to stay in the circles on the field per household...
Now that the PEC is in full swing, and there are critical reactions on this and other sites to what is on the table, it seems to me that this whole thing will once again result in a piece of cake. In other words, wasted effort, because no one puts the finger on the sensitive spot in the public interrogation. Kudos to Anton and the others on this site who DO dare to name things and persevere in their factual arguments. Fortunately, we still have this option in the Netherlands, despite the lectures that the so-called quality newspapers offer us nowadays. By the way, I'm curious whether top journalist Maarten Keulemans (who has always promised to respond here) will hear from us again. And whether he has the courage to finally consider the mountains of information about the laboratory origins of the virus, as well as the harmfulness of the useless measures. And, last but not least, the piles of evidence of damage from mRNA vaccination, often leading to death. If MK were to die, things would take a completely different turn, especially given his influence through the UK. Perhaps a dream, but could this happen one day? It is now 4 years later (declaration of the end of the pandemic by the European Championship), and almost ALL of the leading figures from back then have left, so they will no longer offer any resistance... So, Maarten, what are you paying attention to?
Way too much credit for MK in my eyes. The really good work is nicely distributed among the critical people and media. One is still conducting legal proceedings to have the next announced C-shots banned, the other for the OMT reports, the next is still working on excess mortality (standard mortality), etc etc. As Marianne “screamed” (and I think she can do that very often ❤️) most even do this good work voluntarily! Thank you thank you! Is Hugo going for the bus because that's what it sometimes seems like when I hear it in all the reports? I don't expect anything from the committee itself, but will the people's eyes be opened? 🤞
Opening sentence missing. Read: Now the PEC….
(corrected, AT)
Furthermore, it seems to me that most site visitors are in reasonable agreement; now for the narrative followers...
“Failure of RIVM, CBS, judiciary and parliament would be disastrous for the stability of our system.” That's it, at least it has been for my perspective on our society. My original loyalty to Dutch society is lost, and it seems as if that sentiment continues to spread through the ether, in small and large drops. My solidarity has shifted to individuals. Like Anton Theunissen. Thank you once again for your razor-sharp and flowery analysis.
Old regime.