Een wat onhandig geformuleerde tweet van mij ging afgelopen week viraal, althans voor mijn doen (159 reacties, 463 keer gedeeld en 1,2K Likes). Een vanuit de Jumbo verzonden tweetje met een foto van voorpagina's waarop geen enkel spoor was te vinden van de Duitse rel over de merkwaardige drijfveer van de coronabeleidsmakers: wetenschappelijk was die in elk geval niet. Hoe de Duitse media ermee omgaan zie je bijvoorbeeld in het vertaalde artikel van Die Welt op maurice.nl.
(For the enthusiast: I have from the RKI minutes een wat handzamere 20MB PDF artificial. The originals and the separate Word files are available here.)
In the comments under the tweet, the counter-argument is mainly about the fact that there was little new under the sun. After all, social measures, face masks, vaccinations, censorship, prohibited medication, etc., had long been established to be harmful, many say.
It's strange that all those people just let it all happen and even supported it.
There are also regular references to a tweet thread by Maarten Keulemans, die enkele sub-onderwerpen aanhaalt onder het motto ‘ik was ook kritisch hoor’, waarbij zijn kritiek te zwak was om iets uit te richten en net genoeg voor een rol als controlled opposition. Hij heeft nooit de strijdbijl opgegraven, hij werd nooit boos op de experts, hij liet zich bij twijfel netjes bijpraten door Koopmans of Bonten en dan ging het wel weer. Hij was nooit woedend. Iedereen die doorzag wat er gebeurde, was woedend. Als je niet woedend bent geworden, heb je simpelweg niet begrepen wat er aan de hand was en overzie je de netto schade niet. Met je "ik had ook kritische stukjes". Maar daar gaat het allemaal niet om.
The crux of these RKI files is that the experts subjected the population to measures and therapies of which they had no idea how harmful or how effective they would be, at most a vague suspicion: expert opinion.
Expert opinion, the weakest form of scientific argumentation
- Veel richtlijnen die de term 'expert opinion' gebruiken, geven geen onderbouwing.
- Expert opinion recommendations often contain all kinds of evidence.
- Expert opinion recommendations are usually used to describe circumstantial evidence.
https://ebm.bmj.com/content/22/5/164
It also turns out that they knew early on how serious Covid really was (severe flu). For children, even less severe than influenza.
In that context, it is nice to recall how Boris Johnson outlined Covid-19 when the heads of state had not yet been briefed about the fact that their own NATO (especially the US defense and Western science) was involved in the development of bioweapons, together with arch-enemy China. In the process, life-threatening innovations were exported under virological cover to Chinese laboratories that did not meet Western safety standards. But Johnson didn't know that yet.
Despite this, the experts and governments continued to disrupt society and victimize children to protect grandparents. These are criminal decisions. That's the thing: they knew everything, they knew about the possible (and sometimes certain) damage. They knew it was a gamble as to whether something would work at all or cause damage.
Of course, at some point they also knew (wait until the OMT tapes are released) that infections were via aerosols and in order to both save face and keep the business model of virology afloat, they did nothing about it. Only their bans on gatherings had a welcome side effect on superspreading.
Er was simpelweg geen spat onderbouwing voor het hele desastreuze beleid. Dat zij zich dat zelf ook realiseerden, dát is het punt. Het gaat er dus niet om dat dat allang bekend was in de wetenschappelijke wereld en dat er dus niets nieuws is onder de zon of dat een journalist zelf ook al eens iets had aangestipt, 'kijk maar'. Ook niet dat WIJ allang wisten dat zij alles verkeerd deden, nee, wat nu zwart op wit staat: ZIJ wisten zelf wat ze verkeerd deden en ze deden het toch! Ze zetten er juist zwaarder op in.
Doubling-down, do you know that expression? Comes from poker: if you've bet on a certain hand and you want to convince your opponents that it really wasn't a bluff, you double the bet. Hoping they believe you are unbeatable and will fit in. If they don't ('call your bluff') then you fall through the cracks. To save face, you can keep busy with that doubling-down for face saving reasons. That is the impression given by the OMT during the corona crisis and Marion Koopmans now on X when it comes to the lab leak. She doesn't have any other options either.
Once you have manoeuvred yourself into an impossible position with your bluff, there is little choice but to insist in the dock that you were of good will and that you always told the truth. Only then, in order to show respect for the court, can you express regret that you were obviously wrong.
There are no reasons to assume that things went much differently in the Netherlands, both the results and the culture of silence were too uniform for that. Anyone who claims that things were very different in the OMT can probably show the minutes or the tapes.
"RKI moet niet communiceren dat gevaccineerde mensen geen drager zijn, want binnenkort zullen veel mensen gevaccineerde dragers kennen."
Expert Considerations. Unbelievable face saving. The excellent famous Robert Koch Institute in search of lies they can get away with.
Then the question arises: did they really know it all? Or just a few key figures with a big mouth? Most medical policymakers did indeed know, as is evident from those minutes. Assuming that they would not let themselves be convinced by NRC and NPO when they returned home that things were different.
What does Aya write herself?
Aya Velâsquez is the journalist to whom the documents were leaked by a conscientious objector (former) employee of the Robert Koch Institute. She very neatly extracts some of the first key facts from the enormous pile of documents. She leaves it up to the reader to make a judgement about that. Mine I put italic behind each point.
What Aya Velâsquez writes about it on her Substack, in short:
Het is dag 10 na het lek van de notulen van het crisisteam van het Robert Koch Institute. De publicatie heeft veel reacties uitgelokt: sommigen betwijfelden de echtheid, anderen vielen ons persoonlijk aan op de persconferentie. Wat onderbelicht bleef, is de goed onderbouwde inhoud van de notulen. Met duizenden pagina's aan materiaal is het onmogelijk alles in korte tijd te lezen. Ik heb me gericht op de periode mei tot december 2021, omdat deze periode pas met dit lek bekend werd. Hieronder vat ik de belangrijkste passages en conclusies samen. Wordt vervolgd.
- Societal impact:
The RKI's measures and communication had significant social impacts. The institute acknowledged that certain populations were severely affected by the measures, but still chose to continue them. This resulted in a tension between public health and individual freedoms.
[Vv: in short, fundamental rights were not respected, not even by the House of Representatives. Do we have a systemic problem?] - Effectiveness of Vaccines:
The RKI files show that the RKI was aware early on that vaccines provided some protection against infection and not against transmission of the virus. In addition, there were concerns about serious side effects, but this information was often minimized in public communications so as not to harm the vaccination campaign.
[Vv: "vaak geminimaliseerd" doet geen recht aan de werkelijkheid: integere artsen met het correcte verhaal werden vervolgd, critici werden in hechtenis genomen, de rechtbank werkt mee aan dit onrecht.] - Booster shots and vaccinations:
The documents show that the push for booster shots was primarily driven by pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer and political pressure, rather than purely scientific recommendations. The RKI played a supporting role in this and actively promoted these measures, despite the aforementioned internal doubts about their effectiveness and necessity.
{Vv: This raises questions about corruption in science, not just at the RKI.] - Pressure/coercion/obligations regarding vaccinations and testing:
The RKI supported strong vaccination and testing commitments. Internal communication within the institute shows that there was an awareness of the psychological and social consequences of these obligations for the population. Despite this knowledge, measures were strengthened, with a focus on controlling and containing the pandemic.
[Vv: Everyone had this knowledge. The watchdogs of democracy, the media, should have taken immediate action. The fact that they continued to drive citizens into a corner with fire and sword raises questions about independence of the media and corruption/conflicts of interest of journalists.] - 2G Regulations:
The 2G rules (access only for vaccinated and recovered people) were introduced mainly for self-protection and had no impact on the protection of others, as was originally suggested. The RKI was also aware of this. This was not prominently communicated, leading to misunderstandings and frustrations.
[Vv: deze begrijp ik eerlijk gezegd nog steeds niet. Er wordt onderscheid gemaakt tussen "Selbstschutz" en "Fremdschutz": resp. zelfbescherming en voorkomen van verspreiding door het besmetten van anderen. Maar als 2G zelfbescherming biedt aan ontvankelijken, hoe kan het dan niet werken tegen verspreiding door de 'shedder' die die ontvankelijken dankzij 2G niet heeft besmet? Dat kan niet. Het lijkt erop dat ook die 'zelfbescherming' hooggeleerde onzin was.]
Conclusion:
De documenten uit de RKI-bestanden onthullen een complex beeld van de besluitvorming tijdens de pandemie. Ze benadrukken de invloed van externe druk, zoals van farmaceutische bedrijven en politieke agenda's, op gezondheidsmaatregelen. Bovendien tonen ze de interne worstelingen en afwegingen van het RKI in het balanceren van wetenschappelijke kennis met publieke communicatie en beleidsvoering. De onthullingen vragen om een kritische reflectie op de aanpak van de pandemie en de lessen die hieruit getrokken kunnen worden voor toekomstig gezondheidsbeleid.
Yes: a critical reflection! I think this is a great assignment for CBS and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). Something for ZonMW.
Thank you so much for this article and your tenacity! You should get millions of likes from supporters and awakened immediately. During my stay in France, I noticed (even) much more "suppression", i.e. censorship of messages I like to read or conversations I like to listen to. The RKI files are supposed to be intense and big news, but I notice something, in my eyes, very strange even when one reads this information: An acquaintance always shared every little thing and now concealed two suddenly deceased people in our area, so I found out about it through a newspaper. Others, in their thirties, celebrated their 12 1/2 year wedding anniversary years earlier "because otherwise so many people would not be there". And more misery... And I have warned all of them and still do, but even with the evidence such as the RKI files, they close their eyes and ears and seem to accept their fate. Ready for war, it 🤷 ♀️ seems
For more than 40 years, the tobacco industry managed to cover up the fact (first demonstrated by Hill in 1955 and published in the BMJ) that smokers had a more than 10-fold increased risk of lung cancer, playing the game of 'doubt is our product'.
"Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also a means of establishing controversy."
Not that I am here to point out the dangers of smoking on lung cancer (note e.g. absolute vs relative risk difference), but to the fact that even now state/corporation/media are doing their utmost to sow 'doubt' = doubt, by silence and other chicanery that makes people doubt the cv19 narrative and thus cause a controversy. And if that no longer works, they have to take the flight forward by saying: 'everyone has known for a long time that smoking->lung cancer' (in those days) or 'everyone has known for a long time that measures do not work against the spread of the 'new' disease.'
In other words: The comparison with the tobacco industry indicates that a similar cookbook is used around CV19 as around smoking gives lung cancer 'controversy'. –Why? – to people
a) mislead
and b) if that no longer works, to draw the card that the blame lies with the people themselves who went along with the measures/smoked: because everyone knew that for a long time, and so on.
Interesting compared to the smoking example is that the tobacco industry only took the leap forward in the 90s and said: 'everyone has known for a long time that smoking causes lung cancer', while with CV19 it could not have lasted more than 4 years.
It is also good to realize that for the tobacco industry, the argument of 'everyone already knew' was their last resort/stopgap to prolong the controversy, i.e. that in terms of chicaneries regarding CV19 measures, we should not expect any more chicanes.
What we see now with cv19 could well be the endgame after which the big lawsuits (against the tobacco industry in the past/ big pharma today) will begin.
The facts are increasingly clear and penetrating.
But the two most fundamental questions keep staring at you without unambiguous answers:
1. What is the motive of the political establishment to push the same kind of measures with astonishing international uniformity, or to enforce them legally if necessary with psychological or physical violence, despite awareness of their ineffectiveness and serious harmfulness to their own populations?
2. In spite of the facts that have been available for some time, what is it that perpetuates the cognitive dissonance or apparent indifference among the masses of the population?
Answering the first question, with due regard for humanitarian ethics and the principle of Occam's razor, can only point to at least a criminal motive at a high international level, whatever that motive may be.
The second question seems to lie mainly in the field of mass psychology and mass communication, in which the complicity of powerful but corrupted system and techno-media, medical executive authorities and certain scientists and scientific institutes can hardly be thought away.
https://bomenenbos.substack.com/p/psyops-en-gedragsbeinvloeding?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1107082&post_id=147697887&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=132v04&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Cees van den Bos gives an explicit answer to the second question. On sites like this, the average reader knows this is going on. But Cees explains how it works on the basis of corona and wob/woo documents.
It remains fascinating that many fellow countrymen still believe that these behavioural and sentiment-manipulation practices aimed at their own people are only an issue in 'dictatorships such as Russia and China', but not in our well-behaved democratic constitutional state.... Is it naivety or moral hubris? Probably a bit of both, given the split society.
An expert opinion should be banned because it is a contradiction in terms: if you knew it so well, you would stick to the facts. And allow the rest to express their opinion.
🚨 RKI files: Genetic sequences are not evidence for a virus (RKI = German RIVM)
The RKI Crisis Team Protocol of 22 February 2021 (https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/C/COVID-19-Pandemie/COVID-19-Krisenstabsprotokolle_Download.pdf?__blob=publicationFile) states that genetic sequences are not evidence of a pathogen:
'BMG (Federal Ministry of Health) is of the opinion that sequencing results are not necessarily evidence for pathogens'
⚠️Why is this important?
The definitive investigation into the existence of SARS-CoV-2, 'A novel coronavirus associated with human respiratory diseases in China (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3)', by Fan Wu et al. in the journal Nature, has been used worldwide as a template for further sequencing, 'variants', tests, and vaccines, and was based ONLY on genome sequencing.
💥Since, according to the RKI files, 'virus cultivation' was not strictly possible, and sequencing is by definition not proof, this is – quite officially – a refutation of the claim to the existence of the 'SARS-Cov-2 virus'".
As astonishing as the 'cognitive dissonance' of the vast majority of citizens is – see Xipeng above – so baffling is the great silence around exactly this point: sequencing is nothing more than dissecting of cell material. For the rest, it is at least as baffling how little attention David Martin's 'patent story' gets.
Here's the movie Secret Files by Aya Velazquez. About the Corona Experts.
https://youtu.be/EfuAOBmipK4
For me, the great heroine, this great investigative journalist, she got stuck in the pandemic deception for 3 years. She made this revealing long documentary about it.
The German RKI with all the corrupt German politicians fall through the cracks.
Now in the Netherlands.
I did my own research and discovered the following about the role of the German government and the RKI. Event 2017!
Watch for 12 minutes and also share this:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6W8NUmiDIpx4xZsdn3nuuUrH9W4rNWZZ&si=KpWv1q5Cq_vRRo6-
Already in 2017, the RKI made this series of Virus Simulation Outbreak videos for the G20 Summit together with the Bundesgesundheitsministerium.
These 9 short films were shown in Germany to all Health Ministers of more than 20 countries, including the EU. For so long – and longer – the pandemic had been in the planning. So all the governments of the G20 countries have known for years that this was coming. Prepared with German grundlichkeit.
This was followed in 2019 by the well-known Event 201. Also a pandemic simulation. It was from the American Johns Hopkins University. That was also the Corona data center. All with money from the EU, Bill Gates, the WEF and the World Bank.
Anna.
Excellent work by Aya Velázquez!
Her analysis of (the first part) of the RKI minutes is thorough and systematic. She follows a kind of mathematical approach: she formulates theorems and 'proves' them on the basis of quotations and passages taken from the RKI minutes.
The whole document contains 18 statements about measures in general and 10 statements about measures aimed at children and young people. She concludes with a short, concluding paragraph on the role of the RKI.
Unfortunately, the content of Aya's work is quite different from the representation here by you Anton! Aya Velázquez is more careful and careful. I also don't read anything in her conclusion about 'learning lessons' and the need for a 'critical reflection on the approach to the pandemic'. I suspect these are additions from you.
That is also premature, because there are many more texts of the RKI minutes to be looked at. For the time being, Aya limits herself to a guilty verdict of the RKI. She is not talking about punishing RKI or other parties, let alone the future of health care.
This is my translation of her conclusion:
Conclusion
(Last updated on 02-08-24 at 20:08)
At the moment, a false dichotomy is often created in public opinion: 'RKI good, politically bad'. I want to counter this perception, especially since it is inconsistent with my chronological, detailed textual analyses.
Because although the RKI, as an implementing agency, naturally often acted on the basis of instructions, and therefore had to make many arbitrary policy decisions, the RKI has also independently proposed and taken numerous unfounded corona measures, including for children and young people.
If the RKI now wants to be absolved of all responsibility, because we are used to thinking in terms of 'good' and 'bad' from a childishly naïve worldview, then that is a dangerous distortion of history. In my view, the RKI cannot be absolved of a historical debt during the corona period because the RKI was politically dependent.
After all, the RKI also proposed or escalated measures of its own accord – and even wanted the measures that were the subject of reservations at a certain point. Above all, the RKI did not want to give up its own position of power in the time of Corona.
Thus, although there were critical voices in the institute, the RKI failed as an institution at a historically crucial moment. The RKI must now take responsibility for this historic debt.
It is a very abbreviated version and indeed the conclusion is not a translation of her conclusion. In my opinion, this also reflects the spirit more than what it literally says (applies to the entire article of course, otherwise it cannot be shortened).
I don't know how you can interpret that fundamentally differently, because if no lessons are learned, for example, then her whole operation is pointless. Then we can stop now and that cannot be her intention, even if she does not write that explicitly in the conclusion.
So I don't think that my interpretation differs that much in terms of content, or that I do violence to her publication. But it's good that you point it out, I'll keep it in the back of my mind.
By the way, about "no critical reflection" and no "learning lessons"; at the end of Theme 13 it says "Die fragwürdigen Empfehlungen des Instituts bedürfen daher einer Aufarbeitung, damit es nie wieder zu einer Rechtsbeugung im Namen der Wissenschaft kommen kann."
I think you can translate "Aufarbeitung" in this case as "critical reflection" and "learning lessons". It may not have been in the conclusion, but it is a crucial sentence that reflects the meaning of the whole action.
There is no doubt whatsoever about Aya Velázquez's intention: she wanted to investigate to what extent the RKI is to blame for the consequences of the pandemic fight and (therefore) to what extent politics is guilty. See also the conclusion, or else the 28 propositions. N.B. in 24 of the 28 statements the term 'RKI' is directly included! In my opinion, the word 'Aufarbeitung' means 'processing' in this context, and you do that with a (historical) debt...
I have nothing against learning lessons and/or critical reflection. The problem is that the social and economic damage of the COVID crisis is so great (including tens of thousands of human lives) that you first have to get a good picture of 'guilt and penance' if critical reflection is to be somewhat concrete. Maybe the entire healthcare system needs to be turned upside down? What should be done with all those failing organizations (such as RKI) and individuals? What should be done with the failing politics? What are the budgetary consequences of compensation?
Leon de Winter's column in the Telegraaf is about censorship and silence... So all your legitimate questions still seem very far away, but I am in a hurry and with me many (actually everyone). Loved ones who will get and even take a wrong jab from September 16... In the meantime, some reports are trickling through in the MSM that it was not the Russians at those gas pipelines after all and that everything was not right with Hunter Biden... It's nice to know that I can always come here for good information that I don't doubt!
I'm honored to receive the compliment and I'm amazed at how even speculative hypotheses were quite accurate.
But: always remain open to doubt! 😉