Twelve years ago, in 2014, Alex Brenninkmeijer warned in the Senate about “system failure” in the democratic constitutional state. His core point was that the Dutch system had started to show too much unity and left too little room for a dissenting voice. For this he used the term “unitas politica”: not a healthy tension between powers, as was intended in the trias politica, but the opposite: a development towards the convergence of institutions that should correct each other.
The video of Brenninkmeijer's introduction is on YouTube. The volume is very low. You can also read the text on the website of the Senate.1Report of the Senate session: https://www.eerstekamer.nl/behandeling/20140408/verslag_van_een
Little was done with that warning. That's significant because it wasn't the sputtering of someone who didn't know anything about it, like a dance teacher, a pollster or an alternative blogger. Brenninkmeijer spoke as a former judge, professor of administrative law and former National Ombudsman. If someone from the heart of the rule of law says that the democratic legal order is weakening and there is insufficient room and hearing for contradiction, then that should be taken as an alarm signal. Looking at the current state of affairs, it seems to have been seen as an encouragement that people were on the right track.
A new layer developed above the democratic constitutional state. The administrative elite increasingly agreed with each other. Equality of governance was found in closer ties with the EU and NATO2Answering parliamentary questions in response to statements by Fleur Agema: https://app.1848.nl/document/tkapi/528117, which - sometimes even ostentatiously against the ruling of the House of Representatives - hardly maintained the illusion of a democracy.
In recente Kamerstukken wordt openlijk beschreven hoe nieuwe kabinetsleden kort na hun aantreden worden gebriefd door onder meer AIVD, Buitenlandse Zaken en Defensie, hoe presentaties niet openbaar zijn, en hoe Nederland zich heeft gecommitteerd aan de NAVO Resilience Objectives, die in nationale implementatieplannen worden uitgewerkt. Ook blijkt dat het kabinetsbrede weerbaarheidsbeleid -het gaat per slot om onze gezondheid- wordt gecoördineerd door onder meer NCTV en Defensie. Economisch en politiek zit Nederland vastgedraaid in opgelegde regelgeving die door de bestuurselite zo strikt mogelijk wordt geïnterpreteerd en zo snel mogelijk wettelijk vastgelegd zodat er in beton kan worden gegoten, naar de sloop gevaren, bedekt met windmolenparken of achterna gezeten door Inspectie en/of O.M. Dit alles ondersteund door media, NGO's en rechtspraak die de onwillige bevolking blijven voorhouden dat het nodig en gerechtvaardigd is.
The illusion of democracy is maintained by steering public opinion in the direction of the intended policy.
If democracy sees things wrong, the media corrects it
In de documenten die Pepijn van Houwelingen op X postte (zie hieronder), lezen we dat journalisten door de overheid zijn gerecruteerd als 'agent'. Er worden geen uitspraken gedaan over de 'modus operandi' van die journalisten of wie het betreft. In de brieven wordt toch één taak genoemd: het verzamelen van informatie.
"Tot slot onderstrepen wij nogmaals de belangrijke functie die journalisten innemen in onze rechtsstaat."
Hugo de Jonge and Kajsa Ollongren
De belangrijke functie die journalisten innamen was traditioneel die van onafhankelijke waarheidszoeker, vaak luis in pels van de overheid. Het recruteren van zo'n speur- en waakhond is een subtiele manier van muilkorven of zelfs africhten. Zeker als je als journalist toch al niet zo'n intellectueel bent van huis uit, is dat niet alleen eervol maar ook comfortabel. Je wordt gebacked door de overheid dus wie maakt je wat. Je kunt de grootste onzin verkondigen - zolang het maar in lijn is met wat de overheid wil communiceren. Een voorbeeld zou bijvoorbeeld kunnen zijn het steeds maar weer blijven posten van gedebunkte statements, incoherente studies en het 'verkeerd lezen' van grafieken, in de geest van hoe Maarten Keulemans dat doet.
Ik probeer geen aandacht meer aan hem te besteden maar dat mislukt ook nu weer. Even kijken wat hij vandaag weer heeft gepost - ah: weer een safe and effective X-wire3safe and effective X-thread from @mkeulemans. Hij ageert (pun intended) net tegen het vertonen van de docu "De Stilte schreeuwt" (een nogal incomplete oversterfte-documentaire want ik zit er niet in 😉. Ook wappies hebben recht op hun prominenten-fetisj).
Have a read anyway.
Maarten says in his always casual, self-evident tone: 'Even ter info: paar simpele feiten die de docu *niet* laat zien. Bewijsstuk 1: de "oversterfte". Het patroon is simpel: ná pandemie is er ALTIJD periode van verhoogde sterfte.' As always, he refers to the Spanish Flu, the miserable period after WWI with malnutrition and poor care (bacterial infections as the main cause of death).
It is complete nonsense, as he has already pointed out several times. But he doesn't care. For example, CBS said about the Spanish Flu: 'Na eerdere perioden met hoge sterfte, zoals bij de Spaanse griep en de Tweede Wereldoorlog, was de levensverwachting weer snel terug op het oude niveau. Vervolgens zette de trend van vóór de periode met hoge sterfte door.' 4CBS about the aftermath of pandemics
Then Maarten comes up with the tired Bulgaria argument again: Bulgaria has the lowest vaccination rate (30%) and the third worst results (decline in life expectancy) of the 32 countries compared. And the second lowest vaccinated Slovakia: the fourth worst results. Those are points for Maarten.
But the next two lowest vaccinated countries, Croatia and Slovenia, show results that are better than those of the Netherlands. How is that possible? That already pulls the rug out from under the Bulgaria argument.
Let's also look at the top: Chile is at the top of the vaccination rate rankings with a vaccination rate of an unprecedented 91%. Of the 32 countries ranked by life expectancy, Chile is only in 26th place, one of the six worst performing countries. That really shouldn't be possible.
By the way, Bulgaria already had by far the worst health statistics before corona, vaccination has not changed that5Article: Excess mortality in 34 countries: vaccine failures while their excess mortality surplus had already been caught up in 2024 6Article: ...en de winnaar is: Bulgarije! Allemaal bekend - maar dat maakt niets uit bij propaganda. Herhaling in media maakt verzinsels tot waarheid.
Verreweg de grootste teruggang in levensverwachting heeft de Verenigde Staten - met een vaccinatiegraad van 68%, zelfs iets hoger dan Nederland! (66% volgend OWID).
Het derde argument is een 4 jaar oud(!) artikel van Maarten zelf, waarin o.m. een artikel uit de Lancet(!) wordt aangedragen. De CDC-onderzoekers vonden "geen enkel bewijs voor misstanden in de VS". Dat rijmt niet met de grootste teruggang in levensverwachting in de VS, in de lijst die hij zelf net als bewijs heeft aangedragen. Het wekt de indruk van een radeloze cherry-picking exercitie. Waarom toch?
Then he comes up with a study that shows that vaccinated people die 50% less. The Covid share in mortality was only about 5%. Just like in the French study that Herman wrote about yesterday7Herman Steigstra Does vaccination cause death in unvaccinated people?. En even later noemt hij 'vergrijzing' als oorzaak van de trendbreuk - dat leek ooit ongeïnformeerd maar het is nu ronduit onfatsoenlijk, misleidend, het is voor iedereen die ook maar iets weet van dit dossier zowel "medische desinformatie" als statistische bullshit. Ik vraag mij af wat iemand ertoe brengt om zo overduidelijk te liegen. Wil hij misschien betrapt worden?
Ik ga niet wéér het draadje oprollen. Ik zie wel dat hij nog steeds geen grafieken kan lezen. Hij toont de Euromomo-grafiek, waar de sterfte tussen 2021 en 2025 nauwelijks nog onder baseline komt (hij begrijpt de 'bandbreedte' niet of doet alsof).
Below is a graph for comparison from Our World in Data: Excess mortality comparison between the most highly vaccinated country Chile, the US with the largest setback in life expectancy and the middle-class Netherlands. I mean, you can go either way.
Genoeg over Keulemans. Terug naar de gerecruteerde journalisten (of er vergoedingen tegenover staan is geheim, mogelijk zijn het 'gekochte' journalisten), als belangrijke informatieleveranciers voor de inlichtingendiensten. Dat moet dan betekenen dat de informatie die journalisten verzamelen niet zomaar in de krant is te vinden of uit de NPO-berichtgeving is te destilleren. Waarom zou je ze anders recruteren? Het gaat kennelijk over a) andere informatie en/of b) andere communicatietaken.
ad a) Other information - Dat zou betekenen dat journalisten informatie achterhouden voor hun publiek. Zij maken dan een selectie van informatie die ze niet in de krant zetten maar wel aan de inlichtingendiensten doorgeven. Dat komt neer op het bewust misinformeren van hun publiek. Het onthouden van bepaalde informatie is immers ook misinformatie of desinformatie.
ad b) Other tasks - Een 'agent' is iets of iemand die handelingen voor je uitvoert en namens jou kan optreden. (Latijn: 'agere' = doen, handelen, in beweging zetten). Een belangrijke reden om specifiek journalists als 'agent' te werven is toegang tot een platform met een groot publiek, en wel een publiek dat aan een medium als 'kwaliteitskrant' of 'tv-programma' grote autoriteit toekent. Door het publiek te voorzien van strategisch geselecteerde (of bedachte, zie de Eurobarometer8Article: Sunny Image of the Eurobarometer) information, public opinion is steered towards the current policy.
The letters emphasize several times how important journalists are because of 1) their information and 2) their role in the rule of law. That already reads as a careful way of indicating that disseminating the correct information serves the interests of the state.
Whether we want it or not
The vague contours that Brenninkmeijer outlined in 2014 have now become clearly defined: democratic decision-making still formally takes place within the known institutions, but materially increasingly within frameworks that have already been set out elsewhere. National politics and associated public opinion have now become a decently raked playground, cordoned off with watchtowers and barbed wire.
Under pressure from corona, it became visible to a much larger audience what “too much unity” means in practice. Politics, administration, advisory bodies, supervisors and large parts of the media did not function as mutually correcting forces, but as parts of one guiding whole. Corona was the stress test that revealed the direction in which the constellation was developing.
Soevereiniteit weg, energie weg, voedselvoorziening weg, geld weg, zelfredzaamheid weg. Tanende tegenmacht...? Afwijkende meningen en analyses worden bestreden, gemarginaliseerd en gecancelled, nog vóórdat een open inhoudelijk debat goed en wel kan plaatsvinden. De media vervullen daarin een belangrijke rol, zie ook de openbare verbale lynchpartijen in talkshows. Elke kritiek op de centralistische ideologie-agenda -waar vaccinatie onderdeel van is- wordt genadeloos publiek afgemaakt door een deugpanel van moreel verontwaardigde nitwits. Het is niet om aan te zien. Denk Jan van de Beek, Gouke Moes, Lidewij de Vos.
Brenninkmeijer's verzwakte tegenmacht binnen de rechtsstaat blijkt een vroeg signaal te zijn geweest van een bredere ontwikkeling waarin politiek, bestuur, expertise, media, financiën, veiligheidscoördinatie en gezondheidszorg steeds meer in elkaars verlengde zijn komen te liggen en waarbij de burger geen besluitvormende rol meer speelt. In de post-corona jaren wordt het ook steeds openlijker verwoord. Wie dat nog steeds als incident beschouwt, onderschat hoe ver de Nederlandse democratie al is geërodeerd door de bovenliggende 'veiligheids'logica.
'Veiligheid' is natuurlijk niet de enige morele dooddoener. Er zijn nog vele andere supranationale doelen die een strak gedirigeerde samenleving na zal moeten streven: Diversity, Equality, Inclusion en de Social Development Goals, waar gezondheid en veiligheid belangrijke onderdelen van zijn.
They are ideological virtue roots of global importance presented to us that require centralist governance, brainstormed together at informal meetings of capital and politics and then professionally distributed through legacy media and A.I.
No democracy, no referendum, just from private parties and politicians and other influencers, whether or not invited in a personal capacity. If we are not willing to do everything for those morally superior goals, then something will happen: more taxes, more control, less privacy, fewer rights.
If you want to do that, keep reading newspapers and watching talk shows. That really works. Otherwise, the government would not have allocated hundreds of millions extra for the media to convince vaccine doubters9Mediacracy 2: How doubters were targeted. For now it's all business as usual.
Whether we want it or not.
What is Dagobert like then? Click here
Organizational chart submitted by a well-established member of the Eucalyptic Society
Footnotes
- 1Report of the Senate session: https://www.eerstekamer.nl/behandeling/20140408/verslag_van_een
- 2Answering parliamentary questions in response to statements by Fleur Agema: https://app.1848.nl/document/tkapi/528117
- 3safe and effective X-thread from @mkeulemans
- 4
- 5
- 6Article: ...en de winnaar is: Bulgarije!
- 7Herman Steigstra Does vaccination cause death in unvaccinated people?
- 8Article: Sunny Image of the Eurobarometer
- 9Mediacracy 2: How doubters were targeted
Hello Anton, I can't help but respond - since you like to make allegations but do not delve into the other side of the matter, I will have to put it in the comments again. For the unsuspecting reader, especially.
You are RIGHT that excess mortality does not correlate well with the vaccination rate in a country. That's just the point! If vaccines were to cause massive damage resulting in excess mortality, you would expect to see the countries with the most vaccinations at the top in a ranking, and the countries with the fewest vaccinations at the bottom. That's not true. I think it's a benefit that we agree on that.
Unfortunately, you avoid the logical follow-up question: if vaccines do not explain the differences in excess mortality between countries, what does? The preprint from which I quote identifies several factors: overall health/age of the population (logical: with Covid, the vulnerable were the losers), vaccination rate (lower vaccination rate resulted in higher mortality) and speed of lockdowns (because, I know we both don't like it, but the fact is that locking people at home helps prevent the spread of the virus).
John Ioannidis is interesting: excess mortality in a country correlates strongly with the degree of poverty. This is in line with what you also see in the Netherlands: more excess mortality in poorly vaccinated, poorer working-class neighborhoods and inner cities (and among migrants!).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38019858/
I would withdraw your reference to Our World In Data. Although I also use OWID a lot, the excess mortality statistic is *not* reliable, because these are uncorrected, raw figures. That's why professionals don't use them.
You rightly point out to me that Euromomo indicates more periods of excess mortality. But I'm concerned about the bigger picture: seen from a distance, the excess mortality occurred BEFORE the import of vaccines, not AFTER. That clearly indicates that the problem was the coronavirus and not so much the vaccines. I also think that without vaccines we would ALSO have seen a decrease in excess mortality, as has also been modeled by Marc Lipsitch's group, among others.
Your suggestion about purchased journalism is pure populism. The letter to parliament from two years ago (!) to which you refer was about several freelance foreign correspondents, who have apparently been contacted to also be the ears and eyes of the Netherlands in (I believe) Africa.
By the way: it is *scandalous* that a government would even THINK about doing something like this. And I have no idea whether the correspondents in question indulged in it. I'm pretty sure they weren't professionals, in the sense of: journalists whose reporting reaches the major media.
What many readers do not know (but you and I do) is that many 'journalists' are people who sometimes write part-time freelance for a trade magazine or a specialist website. That is SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT from the professional journalism you are talking about, which is simply independent. The journalists I know (I am one myself) entered journalism EXACTLY to report on news developments on behalf of the reader/viewer, rather than on behalf of a government or company.
I am very aware of that. And if you really want to piss me off, suggest that I be some sort of commissioned government vassal. I would like to remind you that journalism is constantly bringing affairs to light - from the benefits affair to the face mask deal to (recently) the tampering with the CV by that D66 state secretary whose name I have already forgotten, and the revelation that the Lidewij de Vos, whom you so much praised, is having a nice dinner with people who are simply giving white-power greetings in the photos.
Anton, we disagree on a lot, but I hope you don't hang around with people like that either.
Greetings, in a personal capacity, Maarten
Dear Mr Keulemans,
How nice that you are now posting a comment on this site. Cheers!
Finally, a different voice is penetrating the mainstream media, through your reading of what is being exchanged on this site... You will experience this as being completely different from what you normally write in our acclaimed quality newspaper, De Volkskrant. However, do you realize what is hidden behind the government narrative you propagate and support? Like on this site and on many other websites. You certainly do not give that impression in your scientific contributions.
Would it be something to hold a public debate between you, some other government narrative propagators and a few Covid dissidents, which you will find abundantly available through this site. Simply, a discussion with all the arguments on the table (and not just the filtered information that you keep putting forward), and then: shoot.
For now: I am very happy to hear from you, and hope that you will be brave enough to accept my proposal. How we are going to do this is verse two. First of all: are you prepared to do something like that?
In a personal capacity, out of caution for the time being, zazoz
The fact that you can never demonstrate 100% certain causality with geographical data is something that is important to mention in, for example, the Volkskrant or here. You probably know the infamous history of the so-called 7 countries studies by Ancel Keys, a study that convinced us (the public, science, doctors, etc.) with the help of cherry picking, among other things, that saturated fats cause cardiovascular disease (instead of, for example, sugar).
The reason why it is necessary to refer to geographical studies (or other observational studies) into the vaxx-mortality connection is because the randomized studies that could look at this have ended prematurely. You know that, don't you, Maarten?
The latter is the crux of the above story (as I read it) and actually also the shame of science that they accepted Pfizer's 95% effectiveness claim (on let's face it: a surrogate endpoint), at a time when the data had not yet been published in a professional journal. Peter Doshi has written good (critical) things about that. Yours truly too
https://web.archive.org/web/20240329215542/https://maartenleeflang.blogspot.com/2024/02/inhoudsopgave-in-opbouw-profiel_11.html
Dear Maarten,
I really appreciate your substantive response.
That deserves respect and it also makes it possible to have a real conversation.
About correlation with vaccination rate
You recognize that the correlation based on vaccination rates is weak and even shows the opposite of what you would expect.
Then any reference to vaccination rates as an explanation is logically untenable. This undermines your earlier argument (low vaccination rate and highest mortality deficit) and then interprets it as a gain...
But an argument that does not correlate cannot be used causatively. That's basic methodology, not opinion.
The logical follow-up question for me is: Please explain why you still use that as an argument? I can't get that conclusive.
Consistency of vaccination effects
These types of national comparisons assume that the vaccines used are consistent everywhere.
That is factually incorrect: *hot lots*, varying lipid stability and production differences make it impossible to assume one uniform effect.
Moreover, the mass production quality is not even the approved trial quality. Different production process, so medicinally and formally, a different product has been injected than what was approved.
Other medicines would immediately be withdrawn from the market in the event of such a batch variation.
OWID versus Euromomo
To monitor structural shifts you need a demographically adjusted expected mortality rate, based on population structure — which is what CBS or STMF (Short-Term Mortality Fluctuations) are trying to do, for example. Do you value Claude.ai? Then read this: https://claude.ai/share/acaeff25-45d8-410a-87e1-4f250721cd7d
By the way, STMF has stopped after 2022, how convenient. Something for you to pursue.
Easier: see our solid proposal for a Standard Mortality, which is being studiously ignored. https://virusvaria.nl/de-noodzaak-van-een-normsterfte-notitie-voor-ria-de-korte-de-tweede-kamer/
Our World In Data gives an excellent indication. There are more precise methods, but for this purpose rough numbers are fine.
You can correct for age and population composition, but that does not erase trend breaks in these graphs - nor the differences shown.
You, on the other hand, refer to Euromomo — which is totally unsuitable for this purpose.
To stay in your style: “Let me explain 🧵👇” 😉
Euromomo's method is designed for detecting acute peaks, not for monitoring structural shifts in mortality levels.
Compare it to a seismograph: excellent for measuring earthquakes, but landscape subsidence continues unnoticed – with seismograph and all.
To analyze structural shifts you need a demographically corrected mortality expectation, i.e. based on population structure - which is what CBS or STMF (Short-Term Mortality Fluctuations) did, for example. Do you value Claude.ai? Then read this (scroll to the end):
Or something easy: our decent one proposal for a Standard Mortality , which is studiously ignored.
STMF ended abruptly in 2022, when persistent excess mortality became increasingly apparent.
Really something for you to pursue. Why did they stop doing that while the controversy was growing?
Lockdowns
The lockdowns were initiated when the virus was already on the decline. There was no kink in the decline when they started, something Fritsander Lahr also showed at the time. Apparently in vain.
“After vaccination there was no excess mortality”
You are right that there was excess mortality before the vaccine rollout.
After all, then there was Covid itself - with all the counterproductive panic protocols, inadequate PCR tests, elimination of primary care and early medication, lockdowns and drip myths.
But you advise looking at Euromomo “from a distance” (of all things!) – perhaps through your eyelashes too, which often helps not to see something. Then you claim that there was no excess mortality after vaccination.
There are just data.
Even the actuaries cannot avoid it: there is still significant excess mortality.
And by the way - unlike what you repeatedly insist on stroman, people don't go “massive deaud” if, for example, there is 8% excess mortality.
It is certainly not the case that 8% of the population will suddenly die. That would indeed be massive. It's different.
If approximately 9.3 out of 1,000 residents die each year, an excess mortality of 8% will result in eight percent more: that will be 10 out of 1,000.
Handsome boy who can notice that difference between 9.3 and 10 in his environment.
It is again an argument that makes no sense.
Correlation of excess mortality with poverty
That correlation with (sensitivity to) excess mortality also existed before 2019.
We have Bulgaria extensively covered.
That poverty (and most national confounders anyway) are completely separate from the trend break that arose in 2021, also in the summers.
The letter to Parliament from two years ago (!)
This is the letter, dated earlier this week: March 10, 2026.
The letter follows on from an earlier one, which I have also shown for context.
So those few freelance foreign correspondents in Africa that you think are the issue (how do you know that anyway?) would be “an indispensable pillar of democracy” are.
“The importance of journalistic independence” of the freelancers involved who, according to you, are not professionals (have you ever looked around in the medical sector to see who the freelancers are there, with their partnerships?) is, according to the minister, a matter of “protection of national security”.
OK…? Freelancers In Africa To Protect National Security? Yeah right.
And that “recruitment” could also be a failed operation: people may have been 'polled out' and they may not even have responded. And a ministry sends such a letter about this in which they emphasize how very special and crucial journalism is for our democracy. Sure…
Who exactly are those pillars in the Woo documents, do you happen to know?
Because you too can be wrong sometimes, I would have liked to see that list. It is striking that a striking number of inaccuracies and inconsistencies are mentioned, written and not corrected in defense of the corona policy.
And no quality newspaper will puncture that.
That has every appearance of orchestration, even at an international level.
After all, several countries are in the same boat.
Populism
You don't have to feel offended: I am emphatically not saying that you have been personally bribed or anything like that.
In fact, I regularly explicitly point out institutional and organizational derailments.
But I think there is a good chance that if you had been too critical - in a decidedly negative sense - of the corona policy, you would not have been where you are now.
See the list of corona dissidents a previous article.
The face mask scandal (a fraudster who fell into his own amorality and thought he could take something from an incompetent ministry, just like all the others who were not caught – 5 billion, anyone?) is of course of no international significance.
Would NATO care about the benefits affair? I doubt it.
Corona is too big to fail.
But: congratulations on your new revelations. Or is it that issue that has been milked dry for weeks now on all NPO channels, in all newspapers? I didn't know you invented that. That has become a new area of science journalism. Who-we-shouldn't dine with whom and how wrong they are in turn. And what a coincidence that it concerns a corona-critical party, which was a blessing in disguise for you.
Personal
On a more serious note, among my closest friends there are those who attach great importance to what they read in the newspaper and hear on talk shows.
You take that authority into your tweets; that's why they are important too.
If clearly incorrect arguments are put forward, I must speak out against them.
Not that it matters I that do. I think it's important everyone does that.
Anyone who remains silent when power legitimizes itself precisely confirms the success of a power that a healthy democracy can do without.
And if I know people who have ever supported white power, I really don't know. I also don't see at all what that actually has to do with corona and this problem. Do you really think like that…? Still trying to prove yourself right based on associations? Hopefully you realize that that was not a very scientific statement of yours. At best it poisons communication. Who wants that – certainly not me, because I think I'm right.
Greeting
Anton
Thanks Anton, I will come back to it with pleasure, but first let's start the new working week. Eating babies, spreading lies, taking suitcases of money from big pharma, you know the drill 😉
That suits me fine. I have to work hard on my donation button again this week and perhaps I will start an article about Lipsitch you mentioned, to explain how your comments about excess mortality relate to his views.
Maarten, you forgot to pet cats together with Marion Koopmans, Klaus Schwab and Geert Wilders, among others. And many others who share this hobby on x. As a lover of dogs (you can laugh at me for this, etc. because of freedom of expression), I cannot imagine that, even if the cat is a stay-at-home cat, with my garden full of sickening cat poop from cats that spend more time outside than many cats would like. We are forbidden to go into the (wolf) forest everywhere with the dog and the children... Or has D66 organized something that you have to go to? 😉 Humor, wonderful! 😎
…and? Were you able to finish this week's Todo list?
I'll just remind you of one too previous invitation from Steve Kirsch, which offered you the opportunity to put things in order. He is now even attaching a prize to it with a new challenge. He proposes $25,000, but since the loser has to pay that, you can also reduce the amount. Or increase it, of course, because you are extremely confident.
It would be a shame that occasion to let go! The terms are on his Substack.
No one dares… I understand. That's why it's nice that we can have a decent debate here.
I have seen Steve's challenge and, like Anton, think that Maarten is the perfect person to accept the challenge. After all, in his corona pieces Maarten is so convinced that he is right. Phew, don't you dare reply to him; the person who does that is ALWAYS uninformed, or simply stupid. So, Maarten, be brave and take up this challenge. We look forward to it!
Less politely, Maarten went on a "rant" on x about the film De Stilte Schreeuwt, which will premiere on April 9 in Pathé Tuschinski. Giving a negative review without being noticed and even calling for cancellation of Pathé subscriptions. Someone who is so convinced of his own right, or perhaps it is fear, is impossible to argue with. Perhaps it is the right quality to enter into a debate with Steve Kirsch. We wish Maarten and Steve the best of luck!
I hope Maarten does it. Not so much for himself (although I sincerely wish him that $25,000), but - in Maarten's words - 'For the unsuspecting reader, especially.'
Dear Maarten, why is it so quiet? Apparently a large part of the readers of this site, and in my opinion of the Netherlands, want this debate to take place! And who else would you like to see shine than our star Maarten Keulemans? This is your chance, Maarten; grab him! And, you can do it. There is also a chance to win a nice amount. As said, we are looking forward to it.
Hi Anton,
Such a bet with multi-millionaire Steve Kirsch seems rather unfair to me: why not a bet for, say, 10 percent of the monthly income of Steve and his challenger?
The trick Steve is playing here is the classic fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, as you have probably realized: 'the fact that I am not challenged means that they do not dare and that I am therefore right'. But as you know, that's nonsense.
For me, it is simply not my role. I know from previous occasions that in these types of debates I am pushed into the role of 'defender of government policy' (you see it happening again here). And that's not me and that's not my role.
I prefer to question types like Kirsch, you should do that too. Want to bet 10 percent of a monthly income that he is not prepared to provide full insight into all the income that the corona file has generated for him?
And, more seriously: that he cannot indicate what exactly the dozens of academic studies that simply show that corona vaccines (have) prevented deaths are doing wrong? I would turn on the laugh track to the argument that 'all data that does not suit me is based on fraud by the industry'.
Science is not a boxing match. It's just about data.
Do you remember this one?
Just some data in a scientifically sound manner.
No observational study with the risk of distorting healthy vaccination effects. No, just the RCTs from the industry itself (with possible use of the bag of tricks they use).
No effect on mortality for mRNAs (compared to non-mRNAs). With a caveat: this only concerns short-term effects.
Medium term and long term are unknown because they did not want to withhold this (working???) drug from the placebo group.
What is your answer to this?
https://brownstone.org/articles/have-people-been-given-the-wrong-vaccine/
My answer to that is that perhaps you should be a little less blind to the Brownstone Institute (a political think tank). Here are a few of the studies that simply determine what the effect of the vaccines was based on observations - calculating what happens to vaccinated/unvaccinated people. There really are a lot of them now.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/1/31
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2805184
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-075015
https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj-2022-074325
https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj-2022-075286
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00054-8/fulltext
It would make a difference if we assumed a shared reality – that of the normal scientific state of affairs.
Thanks for your comment.
My concern was the study by Stabell Benn et al cited by Kuhlldorff and its relevant, scientific interpretation.
Whether Brownstone is (always) a reliable institution or not does not matter.
This does not add or detract from Kuhlldorff's concrete substantive scientific commentary.
Also found your earlier column in the Volkskrant archive about the so-called wappie interpretation of Stabell Benn's article. I don't think it's strong, but it was more substantive.
He (that column) seems to rely mainly on the straw man argument.
Kuhlldorff doesn't seem like a wappy to me and I think he deserves a substantive comment.
The articles mentioned are observational and/or cohort studies and are less strong than those of Stabell Benn.
The disadvantage remains, as Netea indicates, that the study concerns short-term data and that random effects can therefore play a role. However, it is clear that the mRNAs, unlike the adenos, do not score significantly compared to the placebo group on both cardiovascular mortality and Covid mortality and also on other (non-accidental) mortality.
Should be alarming and worth reporting (small numbers become large with heavy use) instead of limiting yourself to responding exclusively to crazy sounds and citing studies with a lot of confounding and thus ignoring a possible (partial) explanation for the persistent excess. (This does exist, right? This is evident from country research.)
Maarten really thinks that he can see from the source whether the logic is correct, the figures have not been manipulated a bit and the conclusions match the data.
The list of URLs he dumps contains studies that show the Healthy Vaccinee Effect. Phew.
I also have a busy week, I have to polish my tinfoil hats again.
Only the study from the top link ( https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/1/31 ) includes unvaccinated participants. The percentages of all-cause mortality and non-Covid mortality are approximately twice as high in the unvaccinated group.
After controlling for “confounders”, table 3 provides (adjusted) HRs for all-cause mortality at 1, 2, >=3 and >=1 injection, respectively.
The HR for >= 1 injection seems to me to be a kind of weighted average of the other 3, but it is much smaller. Do you (or anyone else) understand that?
@Jeroen,
All studies with vax/unvax rely on the Healthy Vaccinee Effect and/or Timing Bias (Immortal time bias, etc.), see https://virusvaria.nl/vaccinstudies-herstellen-vertrouwen-in-de-wetenschap/
About the Italian study specifically (There is a leaflet in it that you should take a look at. I also thought that was remarkable data):
https://virusvaria.nl/een-statistische-drogreden-ongevaccineerde-oversterfte-in-italie-en-bij-nivel/#:~:text=Kaplan%2DMeier%201%3A%20Itali%C3%AB
I should have known you had already devoted an article to it. 😉 However, my question was not about the data, but about a calculation.
If I remember correctly, 1 shot is the lowest and that is of course the most. So as soon as you take that into account, the average goes down.
Okay, let's get to the content.
To keep things a bit clear, I will limit myself here to your allegations towards the press.
The fact that the AIVD and MIVD are *trying* to recruit foreign correspondents is a media revelation from NRC, which came up with this in 2022.
Important: the journalists who were contacted said (obviously) that the spies could drop dead. “I didn't start talking”, “I'm not going to go along with that”, “I've always said I would never do something like that”, “Nothing came of my spy career”, those kinds of reactions.
As a rule, it concerned Middle East and Africa correspondents, who could be in danger as a result (in a country like Iran or Sudan you will only be seen with such a spy who suddenly speaks to you!) But you will not hear Pepijn van Houwelingen about that: after all, he is concerned with constantly suggesting that the government and the press are in cahoots, and not about the safety of journalists. That is why he has been asking parliamentary questions about this again and again for years.
And by the way, I have NEVER been approached to do anything 'for the government' or anything like that. I've never been in a 'disinformation think tank' or anything like that. If only it were true, it would make a nice story for the newspaper.
Brings me to those 'pillars', another eternally repeated myth. Or well, myth: the part that is TRUE is that at one point the ministry referred to the media as “pillars” when discussing their communications strategy. I can't help it: this is how communication types like to see the media – as their partners. 'Stakeholders', another word with which we are constantly referred to.
But I don't 'hold' a stake at all and I'm not anyone's 'pillar' either. If they want! Just like with those journalists approached by AIVD/MIVD, I also find it harmful when these idiots dressed in shabby suits refer to us like this: this gives the impression that we are bigots, which is not the case.
Of course, journalists maintain a network, which is a crucial part of our work. For example, I speak to scientists all the time, always in a good, safe, informal atmosphere. I sometimes explain to nervous scientists that I am not looking to 'catch' them with words, but am simply looking to hear what they have to say. And in that atmosphere I then ask the critical questions that I deem necessary. Because I'm there on behalf of the reader, not to 'defend' the science or 'put it across' or anything like that.
And yes, even in times of corona, that course often yielded insights that are at odds with the 'government narrative', as it is called here. The list of revelations and revelations in that corner is long.
That there would not be a vaccine that you could use once and that's it.
That 'herd immunity' doesn't work.
That the school closures in the first wave had little effect.
That the vaccines from AstraZeneca and later those from Jansen had deep vein thrombosis as a side effect.
That vulnerable elderly people died from the 'mild' side effects.
That the curfew had little effect.
That there is a strong professional literature that advises against QR codes ('immunity passports') because they encourage division.
That the QR codes, when they were introduced, did not help much.
That Minister De Jonge ignored advice not to complain about vaccine refusers.
That the Sputnik vaccine was based on fraudulent research.
That the government continued to fight Covid for too long.
That you could also get something like post-covid after vaccination.
That 'testing for access' at events did not help (there were still mass outbreaks).
That the very last lockdown (end of 2021) was partly motivated by political reasons: the fallen Rutte cabinet wanted the new Rutte cabinet to start with a clean slate.
////
Anyway, the list is longer, links on request, or just look for them yourself in our archive. And no, I cannot help but come across insights that are less convenient for you if you have joined the counter-movement for whatever reason:
That lockdowns do help (the reason that infections were already decreasing before the lockdown is that people were already staying at home - in itself a very interesting argument against enforced lockdowns)
That vaccines work against severe Covid and (especially in the elderly and vulnerable) against hospitalization and death.
That this protection is quite short, but is measurably present.
That absolutely everything indicates that the virus jumped to humans via traded mammals such as raccoon dogs and civet cats (twice a few weeks apart, in fact)
That the first, still rather animalistic, version of corona was not very contagious and was not (yet!) typically airborne (except in apres-ski bars and choirs and such).
That PCR tests simply showed infection (as a professor told me: how else do those virus particles get into your nose?)
////
Anyway, this list is also longer. I think: just keep thinking. And be critical, of me, but also of other camps.
in a personal capacity,
Maarten (who is now going to repair his roof and is very busy again this week)
Mr Keulemans, you are right on the bare fact that the situation with corona is much more nuanced than is claimed/assumed in all kinds of discussions. It's great that you show this side of yourself in your response. A Maarten Keulemans who does not blindly endorse government narratives but reads, thinks and concludes for himself. And only then delivers his scientific contributions to our top newspaper, De Volkskrant. This way it works well and the reader sees all sides of the story!
All the points you list above are REALLY much more nuanced than you can convey with an onliner. You will know that because you are the expert.
However: you are wrong on one matter, which is not unimportant, and that is the more viral origin. Ever heard of Ralph Baric et al? And a number of figures who conducted gain-of-function research with him? And still do? About the revelations in the USA and Germany (at the BND and the Robert Koch Institute)? What do you think/conclude about this, and why/with what arguments? Do you know the Wuhan trilogy and the insider Jim Haslam? Peter Daszak? Billy Bostickson? Vincent Munster? And some of the REAL input into this work?
Perhaps it would be nice - partly because you do not want to be portrayed as a government narrative propagator - to organize a discussion between a few skeptics (e.g. Jona Walk, Jan Bonte, Theo Schetters, etc.) and a few narrative propagators (e.g. Marion Koopmans, Andreas Voss, etc.), with yourself as a unique reporter: it would make a wonderful piece in the UK, in my opinion. What do you think about this, we are curious.
Thank you. I know the origins debate very well: unlike those skeptics you mention, I spoke to all the main players, often at length, often off the record.
Everyone can easily see why the virus has a natural origin: it is full of 'illogical' mutations, typically the result of natural selection, and is on a different branch of the family tree of the betacoronaviruses than the SARS viruses that the WIV studied (and which figured in Ralph Baric's - never carried out - research proposal.
But you can also think of it intuitively. Remember: in the beginning, animals were also frequently infected, such as cats, tigers and lions. In the meantime, the virus was not very contagious to humans (an outbreak in Bavaria spontaneously extinguished). That only came later, with the so-called 614 mutation, in Italy. This is typical behavior of an ANIMAL virus that gradually adapts to humans; this is known from previous outbreaks.
Also intuitive: if the virus really came from the WIV, why would it, of all the places where it could have happened in the metropolis of Wuhan, first appear at the EXACT place where corona-sensitive animals such as raccoon dogs and civet cats are traded (according to photographic evidence and DNA evidence)? Why not in a party tent, restaurant or at a wedding? And why TWICE, in quick succession?
I recommend the blog I once wrote about it.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-161788012
But even more so, I recommend Philipp Markolin's book Lab Leak Fever, which not only examines its origins but also examines the political machinations behind the debate in the US.
In any case, it is nice that a conversation is now taking place between Maarten and a number of 'skeptics'. Great, Anton, that this site facilitates that.
However, I still get the subtle impression that Maarten is not direct in his response. He does not give a direct answer, but deduces things that are already certain for him. Rock solid and unshakable. Because he cannot change his beliefs, this is not a REAL substantive discussion. In which arguments are weighed and weighed on both sides... until they come closest to reality.
Let me then, in the same style that Maarten uses, throw some loose data into the discussion. With the general question to Maarten: 'what is your answer to this?'
1. How does Maarten assess the data published in Arne Burckhardt's book, which shows causal relationships between mRNA injections and lesions/vascular damage in those who died after the injection? What does he say about the finding of spike protein in these lesions and the absence of evidence for virus presence? For the experts, clear evidence of death by vaccination. Swiss research previously showed that the injections caused vascular and heart damage in a LARGE proportion of those injected. Maarten?
2. How does Maarten view the presence of a furin cleavage site (at protein level: PRRAR) in the coronavirus, in addition to the fact that this coding section is exceptionally well adapted to human codon use at DNA/RNA level? VERY exceptional in the sarbeco coronaviruses and evolutionarily very unlikely. The presence in the virus of many restriction sites used in the lab, leading to 6 fragments (useful for genetic work, and proposed by Ralph Baric) is also very surprising and not in line with (short or long) evolution of the virus. How does Maarten explain this?
Note: the cut made by the enzyme produces 2 fragments of the spike protein, which initiates the cell infection process at the ACE2 receptor. of importance in productive infection of human (eg lung) cells and also cells from humanized mice, as used in Baric's development work.
3. The fact that 'formally' the DEFUSE project - which describes construction and testing of the coronavirus - was ultimately not funded does not mean that it, or parts of it, have not been implemented. It is common practice for project proposals to contain components that are already in progress or in a pilot/test before financing is completed. Maarten, as a renowned science journalist, this is something that should be in your knowledge bag. And also the contacts between – in this case – the institutes of Baric (Chapel Hill), Daszak, Munster (Hamilton) and Shi (Wuhan). Informal or formal material transport (virus material, etc.) is normal and highly accepted.
Well, these were some objections to Maarten's arguments. I maintain that an open discussion about all these matters could help us, as a population, further, but at the same time I see that Maarten seems to be dropping out here.
We'll see…
Good day,
There.
1/ I only know Burckhardt from his outrageous (and manifestly nonsensical) claim that in vaccinated men the spike protein has 'completely replaced the sperm'. Afterwards I felt little urgency to read his book.
2/ The FCS is not exceptional at all: it is present in, among others, common cold corona, cat corona, but also in hepatitis. And the way it is in SARS-COV-2 is a strong indication of 'pure nature', because the FCS contains, among other things, two triplets that coincidentally form a new triplet - truly a chance mutation. By the way, it is completely logical that SARS-COV-2 also has an FCS: otherwise this would not have become a pandemic; the dozens of other covs that do not have FCS do not get far.
More or less the same applies to those restrictions. I find it really incredible that this has taken on such a life of its own: anyone (with some specialist knowledge) can see that these are snippets that also occur in other natural viruses. Why would it suddenly be artificial with this virus???
3/ Suppose Defuse was performed - there is no indication of that! – then we would not have had SARS-COV-2, but a virus with the backbone of SARS-COV-1 (and other spikes). By the way, I have been around long enough to know that rejected research proposals are NOT carried out. For the simple reason that there is NOTHING TO GAIN FROM IT: you can't publish about it, you can't hire people or students, you have no access to facilities… I'm afraid you have a bit too James Bond-like idea of how science works!
By the way: entering into a 'conversation' means that you also respond to MY input. I'm curious how you view my previous comments?
“REJECTED research proposals are NOT carried out because there is NOTHING TO GAIN FROM THEM…” So “the outcome” has already been determined in advance by… by who actually? Mr Keulemans, you really have no idea what is going on with “science”. You say it yourself with these sentences: Not everything may be (properly) investigated. Burckhardt is quoted as saying that spike protein would have completely replaced the sperm of vaccinated men. For you, a big fat POINT follows, for others there are question marks, for example: “what exactly did he mean, are translations correct, for example not in the native language, what is going on years later among men (and women) that less and less fertility is being observed, why are more hospice places for children needed because the demand has increased enormously in recent years, etc. etc?” A chance mutation or not, something has been injected en masse that can no longer be removed and that EVERYONE should be seriously concerned about AND for which a solution might perhaps be found for the victims if EVERYONE works with knowledge without the prejudice that you cannot and are not allowed to publish about it and therefore do not have money and facilities at your disposal. Where is James Bond when you need him 😎
No, the outcome is of course not predetermined. The point is: no money means no students, no lab workers, no stuff. And IF you were to discover something, there is little you can do with it because you have not registered anything and are not part of a regular concern.
Qua Burckhardt: no, I do not follow such a comment with a full stop, but the follow-up question: are children no longer being born since vaccines have been introduced? Seems like a no brainer to me.
Once again it amazes me what kind of edifice they have lured you into. No: there has been no reduction in fertility in men since vaccination (this has been going on for decades), it is certain that vaccines do not lead to fertility problems (https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/large-study-finds-covid-19-shots-don-t-affect-fertility) and that of those hospice places for children would surprise me very much, because... would you please check with CBS whether there has been a peak in child mortality since 2021?
Very briefly in response to Maarten's message:
You are completely wrong here, as I stated before.
Moreover, parts of DEFUSE have indeed been funded, after resubmission to NIH/NIAID (Fauci).
You should look around a research lab and ask researchers about how they keep research 'running'. Your arguments will then immediately fall apart…
sorry, Maarten….
Just read the structure of (apparently) blatant rubbish, namely the mainstream media. Unfortunately, there are also many sad stories around us, unfulfilled wishes for children, unpleasant miscarriages and terminated pregnancies. Several children were born with genetic abnormalities, where we have of course, since approximately 2022, been participating much more often than before to raise money through: of cycling and running events, etc. for research that apparently no one wants to do from the general funds. Enough can be found in the MSM that raises the question "What does 'rare' mean for a rare genetic abnormality? If you hear the story of a terminated pregnancy (after more than 16 to 21 weeks) four times in the last three months due to an already visible rare congenital genetic abnormality with no or very low life expectancy, i.e. suffering, you can only listen and sympathize. All of the young people I write about above have taken corona shots because we are at the center of society and have not been lured into anything. The unborn children cannot show a peak in child mortality at CBS. More hospice places are needed for children, says the AD. I also do zooming out and reading articles/studies, which is why I really enjoy reading here.
Dear Mr Keulemans, dear Maarten,
This weekend I will respond substantively to the arguments you have given. First I need to check some literature to keep my vision on the whole sharp. What really needs to get to my heart now is the gruesome shadowiness of this entire corona event: in politics, in policy as well as in the Dutch quality press or media, there has been only 1 narrative to be seen for a long time, and everything that deviates from it is, in my view, boycotted. How do you view this? If you share this feeling with me, wouldn't it be an option to openly compare data and visions, talk about it and then appear in the media with a solid piece - the result of a deep search for the truth or reality? It would behoove you, as a top science journalist, to see something in this and actively initiate it. Following the Agora model a bit: 'experts' who explore something in depth together and then jointly come up with the best outcome. This then describes the REAL reality/truth and not (freely based on Van Kappen) the 'preferred reality'.
Briefly now:
In the 19-bp piece (the FCS), in which PRRAR is encoded, can you identify which mutation it is that you refer to rather unclearly and vaguely as 1 triplet formed by 2 triplets? So a CCG (result of the mutation, coded for arginine) arising from a (for example) CCGCCG? Isn't this a simple 3 base deletion? I don't see your point, and I would like to know what this is about.
Your picture of mutations seems to me to be too simplistic and does not reflect the reality of all modifications in the coronavirus. Sequence comparisons performed on a large scale – including viruses related to SARS-Cov-2 – show a picture of a 'subtle' insertion of the FCS into an originally 'naive' sequence. Evolutionary theory indicates that in natural origins through stepwise evolution - for example via all kinds of sequential insertions and deletions as well as transversions - all kinds of intermediate forms should be found. The alternative would of course be: acquisition via a recombination step; however, then this FCS, with this codon usage, would have to be in databases of naturally occurring sequences, which is clearly not the case. Conclusion - in short -: natural origin of the coronavirus is very unlikely; this in the light of the 100% identical Moderna sequence patented in 2017 (Stephane Bancel, you know, the one from the construction of the security lab in Wuhan).
Dan: Your aversion to Arne Burckhard is difficult to understand: autopsies of those who died shortly after vaccination were very scarce during corona times. Burckhard has been able to carry out dozens of them in Germany and is a recognized expert in them. What makes you despise his work so much? Vaccine-induced damage to the heart and blood vessels, as well as to organs, has long been confirmed elsewhere. Micro damage even in > 60% of the pricks, via good di-dimer detection. Damage to the gonads is also established; this has been conclusively demonstrated in a number of cases. Your attitude here is very unscientific, and unworthy of a top science journalist.
Attn. James Bond: I leave that up to you. I wonder if you drink whisky.
In a personal capacity, to be continued.
Arne Burkhardt has publications to his name, has given numerous lectures (can be seen on YouTube, for example...) and what about those never-before-seen blood clots???
Anyone can tell a very learned-sounding story on YouTube; That doesn't make it science. I would always ask myself: fine, but for which audience are those lectures given, and are those 'publications' in a trade journal? (I couldn't find anything in the regular professional literature).
The big question is: which techniques exactly does he use, is there perhaps another explanation for his observations, what do colleagues think about them? Science is just complicated.
Dear Mr Keulemans,
stop making a fool of yourself. You are a journalist. Please go do your job. Go after the raw data. Find out why there is such a fuss about this. What is the real reason why they are not released? Find out why Lareb is not functioning. Why are reports of vaccine damage not followed up seriously? You should find that out instead of always bothering us with nonsensical arguments.
Go talk to people who have had vaccine damage.
I myself became seriously ill from that vaccine and I have many fellow sufferers. I'm glad I'm still alive. I didn't expect that five years ago. I have proof it wasn't Covid.
I'm fed up with you still calling us spreaders of fake news.
Stop defending Big Pharma and the government. We don't listen to your fallacies. Unfortunately, some bigots do.
What a razor-sharp analysis and how wonderfully formulated! At the same time, society simply continues to move like a mammoth tanker in a direction imposed from above. It cannot be slowed down and can hardly be adjusted. The shore will eventually turn the ship, but what damage is being done.
Anton, what an excellent analysis of recent and current social-political developments. My own remedy in these times that are trending towards totalitarianism: remain vigilant, follow everything they propose – or do – very critically, read (!), base your own opinion on the best possible observations of your own (original sources, not government narrative or newspaper articles such as from our top science journalist MK) and unite with other like-minded people. Let's see what they (RJ et al.) will come up with...
A bit of an aside; message from Flanders: “De Standaard” (self-proclaimed “quality newspaper”) today publishes something about RFK jr in their supplement (with large photo on the front page). He is STILL presented there as ANTI-VACCER! incredible!
In a globalized world, the incentives/rewards for career hunters increasingly come from above instead of through local feedback through readers/voters. Consider, for example, our national sale for Rutte's career.
The elite has now lost contact with the soil. They wear the emperor's new clothes.
What these zeppelin elite do not realize is how vulnerable their self-enriching propaganda illusions remain to system collapse/setbacks of any kind. They live in a bubble. That can work well for a thousand years, as (on a much smaller scale) with the Medieval church. It could also go the same way as the zeppelin because of one event not directed by them. Pride comes before a fall, to stay in proverb mode.
It is gratifying to see a response from top science journalist Maarten Keulemans on this site! A discussion ensues with him. What a perfect opening to finally a completely open debate about corona, the measures, the vaccine (actually a gene therapy that got out of hand) and the deafening silence that occurred after corona and has now continued for years. I asked our Maarten for a public debate between, let's call it that, corona followers and corona skeptics (my words) to FINALLY break the great silence and show the population what was actually going on.... from the lab escape, to gain-of-function research, to the almost ridiculous measures, to the ineffectiveness of the vaccines, to the major side effects of the latter to the economic and psychological damage that has been caused in addition to the demonstrable health damage. Does Maarten know about this by the way? In any case, although he responds to Anton (kudos, Maarten), he remains silent when it comes to participating in a public debate. What do you mean, Maarten? Still any fear that the truth will come to light and what your role actually was in this whole story? It would be great if you responded in any way.
Maarten has indeed participated in public debate. Even on alternative channels!
I remember a meeting with Ira Helsloot (or was that in De Balie or with Jort Kelder? I don't remember exactly), he was with Marlies in De Nieuwe Wereld, and some time ago he accepted an invitation/challenge from Ab Gietelink at Weltschmerz. Weltschmerz later took that episode offline again, I believe because Maarten brought up topics to which Ab had no response.
That is always the difficult thing in such a conversation. You can actually only discuss substantive matters for which you have both been able to prepare well. Knowing everything is impossible, and having all existing scientific knowledge ready is virtually impossible.
I think he has also done radio interviews - but that is of course not a debate situation, especially at the NPO (unless your name is Lidewij).
That's what comes to mind so quickly; there must have been more media moments.
Ah, nice. But now is now; and we are still left with unanswered questions and a lot of nonsense in the mainstream media. Maarten is a key player in the latter, and it would be nice if he finally dares to open up; In my view that means: with your buttocks bare, overseeing everything and making it completely visible to the public (MSM). Hearing and rebuttal for – in principle – the whole of the Netherlands (which wants to listen/see, of course).
And here, on the article of December 20, 2025, about Maarten Keulemans's pile of mistakes. Even then, he was invited for open debates. He asked if I wanted to email him because he thought I was swearing at him, but I didn't, so I didn't take advantage of that invitation. A waste of our time. He reads everything on this site with the occasional response, sometimes with humor...
Yes, of course I forgot about Steve Kirsch's invitation. But maybe the English is problematic.
That invitation from Kirsch seems to me to have come from a joker. If Kirsch would like a “1:1 chat” with Maarten, the most convenient way is via Twitter. Or have you had contact with Kirsch?
Yes, I have been in contact with Steve Kirsch. Then he actually placed that invitation himself. So no joker.
Another good week of opportunity to win (or lose) a nice amount. I think it's earned quickly.
https://open.substack.com/pub/stevekirsch/p/the-most-important-unanswered-question?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1lysl7
This continues to surprise me: you argue for juxtaposing multiple 'narratives', but in the meantime you actually mean: I would like to hear that the virus came from the lab, the vaccines do more harm than good, and the approach to corona was demonstrably wrong.
Also strange: you (rightly, by the way) advocate a critical attitude towards scientists, but do you blindly believe a scientist who claims that the spike protein has replaced all sperm cells?
I agree with you that you must provide space for multiple perspectives, especially in times of crisis. Precisely for that reason, our approach (at least in my newspaper) has always been to look at the matter from multiple sides and also to provide space for 'deviating' voices. See for example:
https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dat-hele-slachtofferschap-zit-me-dwars-je-kunt-geen-slachtoffer-zijn-van-een-virusinfectie~bda1ff67/
https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-opinie/opinie-houd-het-hoofd-koel-en-plaats-ziekte-en-dood-in-perspectief~bd183a83/
https://www.volkskrant.nl/mensen/corine-koole-zag-wat-een-jaar-corona-deed-met-ons-liefdesleven-de-liefde-hapt-naar-lucht~b4cebe3e/
Unfortunately you completely missed it. Do you actually read the newspaper I write for? No problem at all if you are not a subscriber of course. But it does take away from your criticism.
The model of 'experts who explore something in depth together and then jointly bring forward the best outcome' already exists: it is science, as it comes to us through the major medical journals such as NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Cell, The BMJ and Nature Medicine.
There is constant debate about everything, including Covid and vaccination. But there is agreement on some basic facts. Not because that is some agreed upon 'narrative', but simply because that is where the best data leads. Namely: of course vaccines have very rare side effects, but no mysterious mass death has been discovered that can in any way be attributed to vaccines.
Does that make me a 'vaccine pusher' who follows 'the narrative'? No, of course not! I think it is a great thing that we live in a country where people can make their own choices, and I have heard many critics who point out that the government should simply keep OUT of that choice. See for example:
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/hoe-communiceer-je-goed-over-vaccins-politici-suggereren-dat-wetenschap-volledige-zekerheid-biedt~bf973b6a/
Back to science:
-I just looked at PubMed again: Burckhard has not published anything since 1999. I may have missed it, but I don't think he ever made his findings public with technical details at conferences etc. so that colleagues could look at them - in any case, I never saw him there.
-For the details of the FCS, see, among others, the book Lab Leak Fever by Philipp Markolin.
-It is fairly well known that an FCS is present in all kinds of other viruses, but my sources include professors of coronavirology Eric Snijder (LUMC) and Raoul de Groot (UMC Utrecht). Maybe you should check with them?
Mr. Keulemans, Arne Burckhardt died in May 2023 and his work from before was removed from YouTube in 2021, among other things... Who knows what would have happened if his work had not been suppressed but had been taken seriously and people had immediately started helping with additional research? What if the best man were still alive today and could and had been allowed to visit conferences? I have canceled the paper Volkskrant, too much of an edgy structure that they tried to lure me into (joking to show that I am not easily offended) but I find myself in the company of people who read and question ALL sides of this story (and other themes) through many different channels because it concerns the suffering inflicted on many and the future of our children and grandchildren.
See for example http://www.pathologie-konferenz.de, for the important work of Arne (2021). So already then!!! Tissue infiltrations after/due to the injections, observed in a number of deceased persons. What is your answer to this? How does this (finally) make you think? Could this still be dismissed as a coincidence?
The interesting thing is: now take a look at that link yourself. Is this a scientific conference? No. Is there such a thing as peer review? No. A publication, even just a preprint? No.
This is how pseudoscience works: sounding very learned, throwing sand in our eyes, all to convince us. But what would REALLY be convincing is if Arne had simply published his work so that we could technically check it. Or if he had presented his 'findings' (if there are any) to colleagues. Now he simply wants to impress outsiders.
When REGULAR scientists or pharmaceutical companies do this, as a science journalist I always say: nice, but this is 'science by press release', do you also have a publication with technical details?
Now explain to me, dear 'Zazoz': why should different rules suddenly apply to this completely unknown scientist, who has been retired for decades?
Arne Burckhardt, renowned pathologist, highly regarded. More than 200 publications in his active career. Retired for a number of years. died while rescuing son from the water, in 2023 (76 years old).
Probably (my interpretation) he became active again, with autopsies of the deceased after vaccination, because he could no longer tolerate the related mismanagement in Germany. On your own account, with your own resources.
Totally unknown? What do you mean?
I don't know how you got this, but I count only 21 publications by the old boss in PubMed, Web of Science and (the notoriously unreliable) Researchgate, the last from 1999 and the most cited a literature review on pneumonia from 1989. He is in the bottom percentiles of his field.
To repeat my question again: assuming we agree that you shouldn't just believe scientists at face value - why should different rules suddenly apply to this man than to other scientists?
Stop it Mr Keulemans. Journalists who position themselves as mouthpieces for Big Pharma, instead of doing their job as journalists, add nothing to the truth. What is or is not published in peer-reviewed medical journals is largely determined by Big Pharma. So that is no longer a criterion for what the truth is anyway. It is postmodern Pharma 'truth', aimed at maximizing shareholder value.
How many peer-reviewed publications on medical or other topics related to the corona crisis do you actually have to your name?
You present yourself as an expert, you measure others, while like many others you are a layman in this field.
In this way you make a complete fool of yourself.
Your reactions are so predictable that it's just starting to become laughable.
Mr. Keulemans, make sure that the raw data is brought to light. Ensure that independent research is conducted into vaccine damage. Make sure autopsies are done. That is your job as a journalist.
Stop with Pharma parrots.
You are being very hurtful towards people who have become seriously ill due to the vaccine, or have lost a loved one.
Behave constructively or disappear from this blog.
I have already told you several times that you should delve into the personal experiences of vaccination victims.
You can request my email address from Anton. I can also pass on my telephone number to Anton.
Dear Mr Keuelemans,
First of all, appreciation for the fact that you now communicate regularly through this site. Apparently you have touched a nerve, keep it that way. I therefore hope that we will not lose you before a number of matters have been reviewed thoroughly and in depth. We are now living at the end of March 2026, about 6 years after the beginning and 4 years after the end of the corona period. A period of great misery and deep contradictions in the country. You, as an important representative of science towards the population, had and have played a key role in forming images and opinions. And still. News from corona 'land', whether it concerns new variants, seasonal influences on this now endemic virus, new boosters for people over 75 (brrr...) perhaps based on 'self-amplifying RNA', or the great damage caused to those damaged by the vaccines (You can read this yourself on this site), You, and especially YOU, are the great messenger of the news. Indeed, experts 'talk' to each other through science. You say that well. You yourself indicate that you know that science, especially on the medical side, can be highly politicized. You yourself mention the Brownstone Institute, but I can add top journals, including Nature, the Lancet and NEJM. In short, and every scientist knows this: be particularly critical of what is presented to you, especially if you suspect that there are political or financial interests at play. I can assume that you, and your newspaper the VK, certainly do not want to become involved in a dispute, in which you played a role, between interested parties; in the context of the corona crisis, for example, Pharma, the EU, the then Dutch government, and those often irreparably damaged by the injections. Not to mention the deaths caused by the injection, with relatives damaged for life. In my own environment: a 20-year-old very healthy boy, dead a few days after J&J injection; no autopsy, no cause of death determined…. After all, the motto (our Hugo expressed this in his correspondence that has now surfaced) was: don't publicize it too much, this is just 'collateral damage'. The extent of the damage actually remains unknown. I estimate for the Netherlands that we may be dealing with thousands to tens of thousands of deaths, but I leave this to Herman Steigstra, Anton Theunissen and also Ronald Meester; partly also to get the apparently suddenly shifting baseline back into place.
Now about the virus and its origin, as a response to your objections to my previous messages. I will do this point by point and ask you to respond per point if you feel the need to do so.
1. The origin of the wet Wuhan market is - as is now stated by many scientists - very unlikely. The findings of mixtures of, among other things, raccoon dog and coronavirus material, via metaomics methods, are easiest to explain by assuming that people infected with the virus, for example by sneezing or touching, have contaminated the sampled surfaces. N.B. The virus was already circulating in December 2019, and most likely months before, in Wuhan (as well as elsewhere). A plausible hypothesis is that the market served as a hot spot for distribution.
2. Coronavirus research, including for military purposes, has been going on since the early 2000s, and probably long before that. Genetic engineering was developed early, with the stated goal of "mapping the modes and routes of infection, trans-species transfers and immune responses and methods to regulate them." A network of laboratories, with the US military authorities at the core, has been working on this. World expert is certainly Dr. Baric, who works in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has developed some very useful methods for manipulating and tuning coronaviruses, including those of the (betacoronavirus) sarbeco group. His network also includes the Wuhan lab WIV, with Dr. Shi as principal investigator, and also the Montana lab (Hamilton) led by Vincent Munster (student of Prof. Fouchier, Erasmus MC). Also a few others. The network, within or outside the joint projects, made it possible for both material and tests/experiments to switch very easily between the different labs. As a hypothetical example: Chapel Hill developer of new virus and test animals, Hamilton good at multiplication in e.g. their specific (fruit) bats, and Wuhan ultimately for tests in cave bats.
3. The DEFUSE project, which seamlessly describes the development of the known coronavirus, was, after rejection, resubmitted in parts to NIH/NIAD, and thus partly implemented. Shi apparently had his own financing.
4. Additional evidence for genetic modification in the virus: the flanking of the receptor binding module (RBM) by two restriction sites commonly used in the lab: EcoR1 and BstEII, cannot be explained evolutionarily; however, very useful for exchanging the 216-bp fragment with other fragments. This kind of work was done a lot in Baric and Shi's labs. See Yan et al, 2020, Researchgate (free to download)
5. An escape of the virus from the lab, despite the highest security levels (BSL3 or BSL4), is a very real possibility. Such escapes just happen, as history has now shown.
I will leave it at that and would appreciate it if you would respond. In my opinion, if you were to focus on this, there is quite a lot in store for your newspaper. Newsworthy, yes! De Volkskrant finally as an interpreter of what many in the Netherlands have known or at least sensed for a long time. Feeling, what do you mean? Simply, because much of reality/truth has been 'suppressed' by mainstream media (I should actually say: the real discussion about this) and 'people' sense that there is more hidden than is being revealed under the current 'allowed' narrative.
Hello Zazoz,
You write:
>In my own environment: a 20-year-old very healthy boy, dead a few days after J&J injection
I would like to know more about that. Could you contact us by email? Initial dot surname monkey tail name newspaper dot nl.
never heard of SADS?? “Sudden death” is also abnormally high among young people. They don't know the cause, but it is DEFINITELY NOT from the injections, so we won't investigate that either! Well, congratulations, “scientists”!!
Direct contact via email is OK. However, this death in 2021 is a very sensitive matter for the surviving relatives, and you will understand that nothing can be said without their knowledge (only in a very general sense; this death has been reported - in a privacy-friendly manner - to LAREB).
I will respond to your (detailed) comments later. I am curious about your many pieces about the lab leak (I don't remember them all) - can you send some links, without a paywall?
As you have already understood, my field of expertise in (biological) science has made me interested in the background since the outbreak. My archive, which is scientifically based (peer-reviewed publications and other sources), is now overflowing. From initially being a very concerned citizen, over the course of the crisis I have increasingly come to see how much blatant nonsense / incorrect information was being dumped on us. And still is. To the point of absurdity, seen from a scientific point of view. And that would then be leading for the policy... pfff...
An exchange of views on ALL aspects of corona - see above - would be OK for me, and perhaps provide new insights for you, for new columns, containing new knowledge you have acquired on this site? I'd like to hear from you.
And then the content:
With all due respect, you're just summing up the whole "virus-from-the-lab" creed, but can you just answer my questions?
Ad 1/ Good that we agree that Huanan market was a flywheel in the earliest spread of the virus. But my question in return is: don't you find it a coincidence that the virus, in a city of 11 million people, of all places, has its first spread at the EXACT place (15 kilometers from the lab) where they trade corona-sensitive animals? Why not at a party, in a restaurant or bar, or at a wedding?
And why not one but TWO spreads, a few weeks apart, of slightly different viruses? Two lableks, so close together??
Ad 2/ It all sounds very scary and threatening the way you say it now. But science is simply international. And the funny thing is: what are scary Frankenstein scientists to you are experts who I knew and spoke to regularly before corona - Fouchier dozens of times, Baric several times by email. They're just scientists, people who want to protect the world against outbreaks, no creepy collaboration with the military. Shi was not even a member of the communist party and surrounded herself with virologists with PhDs in the West (she herself worked in England and France, among others).
Ad 3/ How do you explain that sars-cov-2 is a DIFFERENT virus than the viruses from Defuse? Wouldn't it make more sense that we had seen a pimped-up SARS virus as described in Defuse?
Ad 4/ If, in your opinion, these restrictions 'cannot be explained evolutionarily', why are they in all kinds of other viruses?
Ad 5/ Completely agree that an escape from a lab is a real possibility, and also occurs with some regularity. But do you agree with me that there are also 'escapes' from nature? From SARS (on a market in China) to Spanish flu and Hong Kong flu, and from Mexican flu to the common cold virus OC43?
Unnecessarily: I HAVE already devoted myself fully to lab theory, I have written dozens of articles about it and have spoken to all the key players frequently, also on a background basis. The latter is not unimportant: for example, I have spoken to plenty of scientists who simply told me in confidence if there was trouble. Also on the anonymous WHO tip line, where lower lab employees, for example, could have said something: nothing.
Of course, if there was even the slightest serious indication of a lab leak, I would just write it down, as we so often write about lab accidents. It would be a great reveal!
see also interview Dr. Sterz, formerly head of toxicology at Pfizer. Anyone who still denies it is ill-willed or too stupid to help thunder...Also listen to Michael Yeadon!
This always surprises me. I think we agree that you should always remain a little critical, even with scientists. Why then do people like you suddenly abandon all critical thinking skills when it comes to science that is right up your alley?
Sterz has now been retired for almost 20 (!) years, was not involved in the development of the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer only entered into a partnership with BioNTech in April 2020) and simply committed my oath in that interrogation: the animal tests were not skipped, I actually watched behind the scenes of such a study for a year and a half:
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/op-zoek-naar-een-vaccin-dat-beschermt-tegen-alle-corona-virussen-de-volkskrant-keek-anderhalf-jaar-mee-in-leiden~b953afb0/
We can be very brief about Mike Yeadon: here is the sad story about how he personally got off track, told by those close to him:
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-vaccines-skeptic/
(are we family?? friends??? Why do you address me as “you”???)
We all address each other here as 'you'. No reason to freak out like that.
as long as we are NOT kirtic tgo. “science journalists”, right??
What nonsense, I think you should also be critical of news. The difference is that professional journalists can always account openly for how they obtain information. I often find that lacking in the 'countercurrent'.
I didn't freak out!
Anyone can tell a very learned-sounding story on YouTube; That doesn't make it science. I would always wonder: for which audience are these lectures given, and are those 'publications' in a trade journal? (I couldn't find anything in the regular professional literature).
The big question is: which techniques exactly does he use, is there perhaps another explanation for his observations, what do colleagues think about them? Science is just complicated.
You are full of authority arguments. Apparently these are decisive for you. What is more important with a very learned story on YouTube is (a) whether it is correct and (b) whether you understand it. My impression is that it is true for you if an authority has said it, and that you do not actually listen to other voices a priori.
How did you view Galileo?
People here tend to know both sides of the argument. That's necessary if you are the underdog, the 'wappy', 'those kind of people'. Just as you have tried to frame the commenters here through guilt-by-association.
(The goal is not to win the discussion based on content, but to weaken the other positionally or force them to conform.)
And, do you find yourself - when the facts finally start to come out (heart problems, blood clots, cancer, etc etc) and you come out piecemeal and economical post hoc with confirmation of this in the Fabeltjeskrant; Do you consider yourself brave and avant garde, or are you more of a rodent abandoning the sinking ship?
No, on the contrary! The authority argument is: 'Arne Burkhardt said it, so it is so, because he is very handsome!'
I believe that you should always be able to check statements. And one way is: let someone who has nothing to do with it but who understands the profession also take a look at it. I do this as standard with all 'regular' messages, and this way we constantly spot exaggerated and boastful claims.
Why should we not doubt the word of such a Burkhardt?
I can only agree with that.
Only that piercing is a bit disappointing in my opinion. Have you yourself skewered Burkhardt *in terms of content*? Or did you not take him seriously based on publication counts? Address the content, refute factually. Then I can take you a lot more seriously.
And as far as authoritative publications are concerned: you as a science journalist should know that their editorial boards are full of partisan people, right? Independent science simply comes from the fringe and not the established institute. Sociologically speaking, almost inevitable. That forces you to read and think about the content yourself. Beautiful, right?
“such a Burkhardt”!!! talk about respect! coincidentally an authority in his field…
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-vaccines-skeptic/
And you certainly believe the BBC too (Trump and Jan 6)?
Come on, smear campaigns are not evidence, are they? Colleagues who want to keep their jobs and have been brainwashed by their employer and colleagues anyway. A photo of RFK Jr. with the caption that he was banned (duh, authority argument).
Smear campaigns, lawfare (what's that German man's name again, Reiner Fuellmilch?) The disinformation boxes... The vilification without substantial content continues.
As far as I am concerned, it is precisely such propaganda tools that cause and maintain the unwanted polarization in our society.
I'm drawn to 'those types of people', even though I don't naturally belong there. It's called intellectual ghettoization, where everyone with a different opinion is intellectually herded together as 'those kind of people'.
The result is that 'those types of people' start talking to each other and unite. Is that what you want?
But Alison, I don't think it's about Trump, the BBC, RFK jr, Fuellmich, propaganda, vilification and so on - but just about the simple question: how do we regain our shared fact base?
I advocate: don't just trust anything. Not from me, not from the cabinet, but also not from the retired old bosses who claim all kinds of things on the internet. I also think that there is much to criticize about the system of established science (with peer review and open data). But I do think it's the best we have. Or do you have a better idea?
It was the best. Until financing increasingly came through the business community. Sometimes directly, usually indirectly. (standard route for a career in biology: write an article criticizing a supplement and get a job in the pharmaceutical industry. 1-for-1, so to speak.) The entanglement between government and big companies has also corrupted science, because ultimately politics has a major say in the assessment of science. (think, for example, of Agnes Kant as chairman or similar of Lareb).
Science used to be fashion-sensitive, but nowadays it has also been discovered as a paid source of desired research results. I personally found the signed letter in the Lancet about the nonsense of a lab leak to be a disgusting example of how political and corrupt pressure works in science.
Finally, the simple question is: how do we listen to each other sincerely again? Now it is mainly the citizen who listens to those in power.
And please don't downplay the mechanism of smear campaigns and lawfare. You are guilty of spreading the resulting lies via web links that you apparently take seriously, including your conclusion for free: away from 'those kind of people'.
You say you want a shared fact base, but you don't take too many people seriously a priori because they have to report and report outside the corrupted science.
So, no, established science has dragged itself through the mud as soon as there is a social interest involved. I'm glad we have alternatives.
P.S. You're using rhetoric a little too much for me, but that's a matter of taste. When did you actually respond to criticism in substance? Here too: I still don't know what you think about smear campaigns and lawfare. You dance neatly around it.
Thank you Alison. For me, this, together with Maarten's “How do we recover our shared fact base”, goes to the heart of the matter.
We grew up with a compartmentalized system in which the supervisors have gradually become merged with the auditees; they are even paid by it and unfortunately money flows prove to be serious disruptors of integrity time and time again.
So, as Maarten also says: “don't just trust anything”. That then leads to “doing your own research” because we still want to know what happens.
Reading through everything, I see that he, more than us, has the tendency to give something that is proclaimed between marble columns and large portrait paintings - or in other luxurious conference locations - more credibility than the information of someone who tries to ring a bell at Rumble with expert explanations. Hence the basic attitude that institutes know better than any researcher/scientist.
This leads to regular use of “ad auctoritatem”/”ad verecundiam” and “ad hominem” arguments. These are regarded as invalid, as fallacies.
Moreover, the discord largely stems from speculation due to the secrecy of figures and the inconsistent interpretations from official channels - which we cannot simply trust anyway.
But apparently no one cares about transparent science, least of all science journalism in the Netherlands; I have not seen any urgent and repeated calls from that quarter for the release of crucial data.
Only 'corona critics' wonder why secrecy of those figures is of State interest.
(if 'Deltavax' doesn't mean anything to you, see these posts. ) Who can explain that? Could those be the facts in which we can agree?
Yes, statistical tampering with and keeping secret figures that concern us all is, in my opinion, malicious intent to protect politicians from reputational damage and financial loss.
In addition, as far as I am concerned, vaccines are really a faith (with a very profitable foundation). Everything seems justified to silence and ridicule people who criticize this. At its best.
The anti-vaxxer prefers to be bombarded with lawsuits 'for the greater good' (witness, for example, RFK jr and his associates who have been sued because they want to enforce informed consent and the judge who grants this - then you really find yourself in a faith with firmly entrenched dogmas that are intertwined with the powers that be).
Anyone who criticizes will, if at all possible, lose their career. Those who have too much criticism do their last interview publicly on CNN (Rashid Buttar).
The interests that need to be protected are great. In my opinion, the word 'digital nation state' can be extended to pharmaceutical interests. They are chemical nation states that apply all the dirty substances that have been used by nation states over the centuries.
But Maarten, as a critical journalist, does not see it that way. He writes for and gets his money from the proverbial Pravda. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
@Maarten: Do you really not see that people like Marion Koopmans and Ralph Baric are untouchable, because research into deadly diseases before they break out gives an enormous military advantage? That the ban on biological warfare is being circumvented by almost all countries? They are probably very nice when you sit on their lap, but... don't keep looking under the stones.
Thank you Alison, you said that very well. And it may surprise you, but I go a long way with it. I think we have the same dilemma: who should you trust, in a world where all kinds of interests are intertwined?
The part that I AGREE with you: also in (medical) science you have to deal with all kinds of business, personal and ideological interests. Just before corona, we had a major project at the newspaper 'Guiten for doctors'. Under pressure, the ministry had finally released the register of which doctors receive which donations from companies, for lectures and the like. Only: the ministry did not want to release the names of the doctors, only the BIG numbers. So we hired a bunch of working students to manually (it could not be automated) link all BIG numbers to the doctors. Huge work, cost us money, but that's just what we really care about.
There are TIG examples. Check out my timeline on X, where I regularly tweet about scientists who exaggerate their data. Often climate scientists, because that's what I write about. But in times of corona, doctors also constantly make exaggerated claims about the super effects (not) of vaccines, curfews and QR codes.
I also agree with you that we must be careful not to dismiss all extra-scientific voices as nonsense by definition. That is a pitfall to which I am also sensitive. That is why I regularly visit people who see it completely differently than myself, I regularly attend 'alternative' meetings, and I also regularly let non-institutional people have their say - last Saturday, for example, an engineer who tried to calculate the army's CO2 emissions in his spare time.
BUTRRRR. I find it all the more strange that I immediately lose you - and many skeptics - when I criticize the 'alternatives'. They also often have intertwined interests: financial and ideological. Why am I suddenly alone?
And vice versa. The vast majority of scientists did not choose science for the money, but because they want to heal patients, or because they are fascinated by nature. Yesterday I spoke at length with an Alzheimer's biologist at a university: a deeply personally involved woman, who daily experiences the nightmare of families affected by this horror disease. By the way, her salary comes from you and me, because she is just an academic scientist in public service.
That's where I really DISAGREE with you. You act as if there are two flavors: all scientists are corrupt and depraved, all alternatives are at least honest and trustworthy. That's just not the case. Take a swipe at the Lareb: Agnes Kant was from the SP! If there were one political color against big business... And Lareb is really disconnected from commercial funding in every way, which is of course the case, because they are a watchdog.
When I say that I think science is the best we have, what I mean is that science still has control mechanisms, via peer review, mandatory reporting of funding, open science, open datasets, etc. Even that retrospective control by outsiders that you are talking about simply exists: pub peer. What also helps: large, collaborative teams from multiple universities, so that everyone checks on each other. And of course all strict rules about how you deal with side interests and such.
Does this mean that the abuses have been eradicated? No, of course not. For example, much research appears not to be replicable, and many medicines appear on closer inspection to not work well or even not to work at all. But it does give me some confidence that this will also come to light, from science itself.
Oh and this one just doesn't make sense:
>He [i.e. I] prescribes and gets his money from the proverbial Pravda. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Is that really necessary? I simply 'get' my money (why not: 'earn'?) via the newspaper collective labor agreement from the income that mainly comes from our subscribers and (to a lesser extent) our advertisers. We do not have direct contact with those advertisers: we have a thick firewall between marketing and editorial, as it should be. And no, I don't sit 'on anyone's lap' and I am independent down to my toes, otherwise I would have gone into communications, and we are only allowed to accept donations of about 15 euros at public appearances, etc.
Sorry for the long lap! Actually, I think it's better to talk about this in the pub.
Ha, this is a very sensible discussion. Almost a tipping point in light of the very disappointing long silence after the polarization regarding corona and the measures. Or should I say: an opening? In any case, if we, finally, as people interested in what has happened and, above all, what has been presented to us, now collectively conclude that sources are just sources (peer-reviewed or not; articles that have been withdrawn, or heavily criticized, or finally accepted after 13 submissions followed by rejection a 14th time), that science is NEVER established (Really nonsense is the statement "The science is settled", which you sometimes hear when it comes to climate), and that good science (after all, the search for how reality works) benefits from hearing both sides, discussion, retesting of research data, etc.
Has this also happened with corona (and also with climate)? Short answer: NO!
Does a good science journalist like Maarten have a role here? Short answer: YES!
In that role, should he look at ALL relevant data as carefully as possible, deliberate and weigh that up, and then make that clear in his documents? Short answer: YES!
Is there still work to be done? Short answer: YES!
It is my hope that - partly due to the now open discussion via this site - something will come into being that meets the above.
Yes, SSR was a nice place to talk. But, life goes on and suddenly we are far apart on the spectrum 🙂
I hope you can handle the criticism a bit (I suspect so). I'm not even angry with you, but I am angry with your views. Many of my closest friends have pretty much exactly your opinion. So don't take it personally. But I am certainly angry about the content of the positions. We have drawn quite different conclusions from our search for facts.
To me, the mRNA injections are terrible monstrosities that were unnecessary and have caused a great deal of human suffering and damage. Who have been shoved down our throats with lies. When I say Nuremberg, I mean Nuremberg.
Agnes Kant just disappoints me. I had hoped she would have been more proactive in disclosing side effects. It could have been done. They were known from a reliable source (e.g. the Israeli government). Instead, she timidly continued to follow the regent line, neatly in Hugo's shadow. Painful and unfortunate. Then it no longer matters to me which party someone is/was a member of. She reminds me of Wim Kok: the socialist who went into finance (not for socialist reasons).
No, of course there are more tastes scientists, but there is clearly a selective mechanism that favors one taste more than the other. For example, for the sense and nonsense of supplements, I mainly go to Asian and South American medical journals. Not with Western ones. Pharma rags.
Yes, many scientists mean well. But just as many follow the issues of the day. Take archaeology: until the advent of aDNA, it was completely taboo to hypothesize population migrations. Almost end of career. Now the paradigm shift has happened, thanks to undeniable aDNA. You should not underestimate the average board for the average scientific head – nor the selection mechanism that maintains its followers. Kuhn and all that.
As for the Volkskrant: I'm disgusted by it. I know it contains lies, because I personally experienced it in full in the Saturday supplement 30 years ago. Nice talk from a journalist and then disgusting lies. And that's what I can verify myself, because it was about me.
And, yes, there is simply a mechanism that prevents people from criticizing too much the prevailing collegial consensus. I see it all around me with almost identical well-intentioned opinions straight from the MSM. Cognitive dissonance. Herd behavior. So, yes, I think that you at de Volkskrant inevitably have to deal with that too.
By 'getting' money I don't really mean that you get it. You do work honestly and hard for it. What I mean is that you are privileged. (oh, that's a crooked word). Whistleblowers are fired and go into poverty. Those who interpret the narrative move up a pay scale.
I think among the MSM journalists you are open to other voices. Cheers. I don't think you really delve into that in depth. Too much rhetoric and avoidance. You say you would submit it to other scientists, but how about you think critically about what all those whistleblowers claim? Check their facts yourself?
As far as institutions and cooperating bodies are concerned: yes, you can send rockets to the moon, but they remain herds that divide the cake among themselves.
Do you really have confidence that pharmaceutical abuses will come to light? Perhaps the tip of the iceberg then. The softenons.
Have you ever looked into the origins of the polio epidemic? Probably not. The down-to-earth facts about this are too 'conspiracy' for most. My point is: the disgusting behavior then did not come out. Not going to happen either. Cover-up successful.
Have you critically examined the transition from AIDS to humans? If you read and critically analyze the peer-reviewed scientific articles involved (Nature, Scientific American), you can draw completely different conclusions than permitted. They really stretch their interpretation of the phylogenetic tree in the direction they want (etc etc). Mi. The medical industry and researchers also play a very bad role there. Don't listen and for you it will remain a tinfoil hat conspiracy. I don't care.
What I want to say: not everything comes to the surface and much cannot be said if you want to keep your job. These remain the 'conspiracies' that are skillfully dismissed. Not with content, but with propaganda and herd behavior.
Perhaps a person is mature when he realizes that he is living a big lie, full of sometimes well-meaning people. I mean: why do we now see that medieval people were brainwashed by the church, but do we refuse to see that we ourselves are brainwashed by capitalism?
Article about pesticides as a possible cause of polio: http://www.whale.to/vaccine/west5a.html
Legionella disaster in Bovenkarspel also appears to have been caused by pesticides (commonly used on flowers) ( https://www.trouw.nl/voorpagina/legionella-de-stille-ramp~b629f3eb/ ): “At one point I could no longer stand on my legs. High fever. Delirious. I don't know what I've been up to in the house, but I completely dismantled my washing machine.” This sounds like the result of a nerve agent, not the result of a bacteria settling in the lungs.
The polio virus and legionella bacteria, like HIV ( https://www.virusmyth.com/aids/award.htm ) to be blamed for industrial poisoning; in AIDS by so-called “poppers,” other drugs and medications such as antibiotics.
Can you bridge the gap: how does this fit into the discussion?
My response was in response to Alison who wrote about the “origin of the polio epidemic,” and “the jump to humans from AIDS.”
Yes, Mr Keulemans, I know something better, namely practice.
If something doesn't work in practice, you need to find out why? And then you don't keep doing the same thing over and over again.
Unfortunately, many scientists do.
Current science has become largely disconnected from daily practice.
Science is carried out by theoretically trained specialists who cannot imagine that daily practice can turn out differently than their scientific model predicts.
If someone claims that the model is incorrect based on personal experiences, it must be fake news in the eyes of established science. After all, it has not been peer reviewed.
Conflicting practices should at least raise doubts. But the opposite usually happens. The messenger is under attack.
In addition, the scientific world is far too one-sidedly concerned with research questions for which a lot of money can be raised. And careers often play a greater role than finding the truth. Solid falsification research is hardly done anymore.
Statistics is a tool that is often given far too much emphasis and can be very easily tampered with. Raw data is withheld due to fallacies.
For all these reasons, trust in established science is declining as much as trust in politics.
I left the university 16 years ago, because these developments were already clearly visible then. Both education and research became increasingly about money and ideology, instead of finding the truth.
I propose replacing 'corrupted peer-reviewed' with 'community-reviewed'.
It has other shortcomings, but crowd intelligence is sometimes not so bad if those who learned it are also quietly paid for it.
gefixt