Stefan: A different approach is quite possible!

Stefan Noordhoek's account on Medium is "under investigation or was found in violation of the Medium Rules." His account on Twitter (@dutchanddonts) has been suspended. Well, he can't be caught for one hole so he switched to Substack. Stefan delivers quality articles on current topics with top artwork, animated videos – and that in addition to all the other things he does, also in the political arena, interviewing for Blckbx etc. His Facebook account still does. For those who are not on Facebook and miss him:

follow Stefan on Substack, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.

Below is his latest article.

What if it is not Corona, but the choices of failing governments that keep us in a stranglehold? A different approach is quite possible!

Is the virus the problem? Or the policy of governments that is failing on all fronts? Read what doctors and scientists think of the policy. And above all: what the simple, concrete solution is.

Done with it

Yes, I know most people are done with Corona. All done. Me too. With the hassle. The struggle. The never-ending discussions. The Articles. The anger. The nagging feeling that nothing is right. The hope that the people 'who have learned for it' and our 'leaders' will be right. The growing suspicion that this is not the case. The piercing condemning gaze of your employer, your client, your colleague, neighbor and the branch manager of the local supermarket if you don't go along with the ever-swelling madness of distance, washing hands, cleaning shopping carts, jabs, face masks, more jabs, lockdowns, having to show a green screen everywhere and nowhere and even more boosters on the one hand... And angry 'wappies' who keep whining and sharing difficult articles and pretend to know what they are talking about on the other side.

And that people have the life-size wish to be left alone. And to finally be able to resume a normal life, in complete freedom. Celebrate Christmas. To go on vacation. To be able to see each other. Whatever.

But how does 'it' end? And what is 'it'?

And that's exactly what it's all about. Because that's what we all want. And we all deserve that. The question is, whether that normal life will come if we continue to be guided by our elected representatives, who have been taking us from lockdown to lockdown for 2 years now, fromDancing with JanssenviaTesting for Accessto 3G and continuous boosters, with still the exact same pressure on healthcare in the flu season as we have known for almost 10 years. Whether our governments act out of ignorance or unwillingness does not matter to this question.

It is an essential difference whether 'the virus' has us in a stranglehold or whether the incessant stream of unprecedentedly harmful and apparently pointless policies has kept us in that stranglehold for almost 2 years now.

Governments worldwide live in a caricature of reality, in which the health and well-being of society has only two buttons: number of interpersonal contacts and vaccination coverage.

Mock dilemma

Ever since the beginning of the 'pandemic', the adage seems to be that the 'diabolical dilemma' is that there are only 2 choices at a time. It is either lockdowns and banning as much human contact as possible (because 'infections') or everyone must be vaccinated. At least 70%. Or no, 80%. Or wait 90%, I mean 99%. Governments worldwide live in a caricature of reality, in which the health and well-being of society has only two buttons: number of interpersonal contacts and vaccination coverage.

There are other solutions!

For anyone who asks 'yes, but what is the solution?' it is good to remember that these 'other' solutions are indeed there. And always have been. Solutions that are endorsed and supported by tens of thousands of scientists and physicians worldwide. And which were already presented more than 1.5 years ago by the most prominent scientific experts in their field and are still supplemented daily with the latest insights from independent scientists.

In short: let the 98.5% healthy population 'get' the virus and thus build up the necessary herd immunity. Treat the 1.5% of people who are at risk as early as possible and thus prevent 80-90% of hospital admissions and deaths.

Let me explain. In 10 simple steps.

1. Be aware: Corona is not a disease of young people, but mainly affects people in old age (source). Risk for people over 80 is more than 1000 times greater than for people under 20. And not for healthy people either; 99% of the 'Corona deaths' had 1 or more underlying diseases ('comorbidities'), on average they had 2.7.
2. Also realize: that prior to 'Corona' there was no scientific basis –and still isn't– that lockdowns (i.e. the quarantine of healthy people), social distancing, face masks, school closures, etc. work against the impact of a pandemic.
3. Finally, realize that mass vaccination of healthy people against rapidly mutating viruses such as Corona prevents the development of herd immunity. Yes, you read that right. Through mass vaccination, we prevent the build-up of sterile immunity in the large group that can easily withstand 'infection' with the virus, whereby only sterile immunity contributes to herd immunity (good explanation here). Mass vaccination thus creates what we are seeing now: a global very temporary and very narrow immunity from the vaccines that must be updated every 3.4 months on any variant that – by definition – will manage to escape the vaccines (even Trouw dares to print this).
4. So the only solution is: let the 98.5% of the population for whom the virus does not pose any serious threat contract the virus. And so let them build real natural, broad and long-lasting immunity and thus herd immunity. As we always did – pre-corona.
5. The people who do experience a risk from the virus (who these are is now extremely easy to determine with simple online tools that help patients and doctors) can be treated as soon as they 'have' Corona (are tested positive) with the manyHighly effective and safe treatment protocolsand resource mixes that are in stock. This can already be done ifearly treatment at home (or care facility), which prevents a large proportion of hospital admissions in a few daysmaar kan ook in het ziekenhuis worden toegepast wanneer dat nodig is. Met de huidige veilige & spotgoedkopeTreatmentsthere is no need toalmost no one to die from Corona anymore, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
6. After all, we give these people – only if they want to, many 80-year-olds might much rather see their grandchildren than lock themselves up – 'Focussed Protection' as long as the virus is still active (in other words: until herd immunity finally develops).
7. Of course, we will immediately stop with the absurd test society and QR madness. Because spreading a virus among the healthy population is not only not a problem, but above all essential and necessary for building natural (herd) immunity. And because 'asymptomatic' infection for respiratory infection viruses before Corona never existedandStill nonsenseis. Without symptoms, there is no contagiousness. Simple as that.
8. We are working on the capacity of care that matches our population structure and size and the task that we want to assign to that care together.
9. And pharmaceutical companies may innovate and try to contribute to a healthy world. Through fully transparent procedures, fair and comprehensive safety procedures and the taking of medication must always be done on the basis of fully informed consent. Everyone should be allowed to decide for themselves – possibly together with their doctor – what their own assessment of the pros and cons of vaccination are.
10. And of course, we are committed to healthier lifestyles, prevention and, as a society, we talk about medical ethics. Are people allowed to die? What does #zerocovid mean? Or #zerokanker, or #zerodiabetis or #zerosterfte?

It is good to realize that worldwide, both supporters and opponents of the 'corona policy' speak on behalf of appealing scientists and doctors. Claiming that one of them really speaks on behalf of 'science' is in itself a very unscientific proposition. After all, science pre-eminently consists of disagreeing on content, facts and arguments, feasible and falsifiable and in a transparent way, and thus increasing the understanding of the world.

Two examples: cardiologist/anesthesiologist and scientist

Een emotionele – maar zeer terechte – uit het hart gegrepen post van cardioloog & anesthesioloog Robert Verschuren over het OMT. En een zeer rustige, analytische post (eveneens op het zakelijke LinkedIn) van Dr. Marc Jacobs, die niet zozeer vanuit een medische expertise, maar vanuit een meer cijfermatige en wetenschappelijke analyse aangeeft hoe het OMT en onze regering (en ook internationaal) keer op keer kiezen voor de foute analyses, de onbetrouwbare modellen, de door de farmaceutische industrie aangereikte dunne selectie ‘wetenschap’, het gebrek aan transparantie en de tunnelvisie… die ons allen heel mogelijk veel meer in de houdgreep houdt dan welk virus ooit zou kunnen.

First, Robert Verschuren's appeal to the OMT.

Dear colleagues of the #OMT. In response to your #omicron hysteria

You really don't understand.
Therefore, a brief explanation:

1. You don't have the necessary #deskundigheid
2. You don't have the #kennis either
3. Ditto for the #talent
4. You don't have any #mandaat. You are a group of private individuals who act unjustly as if the entire medical world is behind you. That is not the case. In fact, you are so afraid of substantive commentary that you have not asked the profession for the right way for 21 months. Probably because deep down you know very well what kind of mess you are making of it.

You haven't been right with your doomsday scenarios yet. Neither does your favorable one. Go home. Do something meaningful, like taking care of patients. That would be a pleasant change.

In the meantime, I'm going to think about the most efficient way to get you it the Big register because as a group you are an absolute disgrace to the profession, judging by the way you interfere in things you don't understand at all."

And below is the piece by Dr. Marc Jacobs (original post on LinkedIn).

"The word is finally out"

We're going into lockdown. Van Dissel's apology combined with the OMT advice promises a very bad start for 2022. The arrival of Omicron makes for a nice repeat of the winter of 2021, when Beta had us in a stranglehold (also from the UK).

For the past two years, this has been the narrative: "Corona has us in a stranglehold". That's actually quite unfair to say, because it's our own choices that keep us in a stranglehold. Not so much OUR choices, but those of our representatives and their advisors. On dark days, I just think that everyone just does their best.

These were their choices so far:

1. Getting ahead of the data through models (https://lnkd.in/dSWU45rB/https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n3104).
2. offer a vaccine with a limited shelf life to everyone (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114228).
3. not focusing on natural immunity (https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1156755635/na-coronabesmetting-zeker-13-maanden-immuun-voor-herinfectie-met-deltavariant).
4. implementation of non-effective measures (https://lnkd.in/dGTnmCyX).
5. focus on high-risk groups such as obesity (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(21)00089-9/fulltext) or diabetes (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33616801/).
6. introducing a non-working QR code in the event of a corona virus (https://www.metronieuws.nl/in-het-nieuws/binnenland/2021/12/omikron-effectiviteit-coronapas/).
7. not scaling up care (https://www.volkskrant.nl/kijkverder/v/2021/hoe-het-ministerie-een-plan-voor-bijna-honderd-ic-bedden-erbij-afwees-en-daarna-opschaling-eiste~v460728/).
8. focus on vaccinations in children who do not benefit from it (https://nos.nl/index.php/artikel/2409493-onderzoek-verloop-corona-bij-kinderen-doorgaans-niet-ernstiger-dan-bij-verkoudheid).
9. measures in the case of children who do not benefit from them (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01571-8).
10. introducing boosters (https://nos.nl/artikel/2409628-weinig-bescherming-vaccins-tegen-infectie-door-omikron-booster-noodzakelijk).

Meanwhile, Pfizer is extending the pandemic into 2024 (https://dvhn.nl/buitenland/Pfizer-verwacht-dat-wereld-tot-zeker-2024-last-houdt-van-corona-27348634.html) and we still don't learn how to live with the virus.

Don't let this become a childcare benefits scandal 2.0.

Follow Stefan Noordhoek on Substack, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.