Maarten Keulemans continues to fable about it and that is possible because “de Volkskrant”. Debunking his writings turned out to be pointless because arguments lose their authority and he does nothing with them himself - or he cannot think. Either way, the result is the same: zero.
As far as I'm concerned, the tweet below may haunt him for life, just as the reptiles still harass Thierry (that was just an adequate metaphor) and the handyman still stalks Maurice (Read The Corona Murder Case1Corona Murder case: https://virusvaria.nl/de-corona-moordzaak/) – metaphorically speaking, of course. Because you can lie in metaphors.
This time Maarten tackled Steve Kirsch. Not that Steve is never wrong, but you have to come from a good background to see through him. Maarten is wearing trousers that are much too big. Perhaps he thinks he is eligible for the $1 million that Kirsch has offered to the pro-vaccine expert who wants to have a public debate with him.
That's not going to happen to him.
His criticism was so stupid that I think I have to explain exactly what the reasoning was - although that remains speculation because hard logic is simply not there. But I have always been strong in poetry analysis, so I dare to do it.
First take a good look at the tweet with graph below, from Steve. Steve asks: “If the Covid shots reduce heart problems, how do you explain this Norwegian statistic?” The graph shows the increase in heart medication (cardiac med.) per 1k.
Do you get it yet? The first mistake.
1. Yearly totals are not a date axis
Apparently Maarten sees the x-axis as a continuous date axis. So in his head, the year 2021 takes place between the tick marks 2020 and 2021. According to him, 2021 represents the position on January 1, 2021. Above the 2021 number we see the total for 2020. At least that's what Maarten thinks. Because only if you look at it this way, the trend is already increasing in Covid year 2020 and not in vaccination year 2021. Of course, that is not possible at all because the vaccines are safe. That idea - that outcome - is already there before the rational analysis process starts, or what has to go before it.
He does not understand that above a tick mark with a year, the value of that entire year is actually shown, you could say: the position as of December 31. This is pure dilettantism. Something for an introductory course in graphically represented data.
Another point: would he have let you know if he had noticed that there were “2015” twice on the x-axis? He must have missed that because it would certainly have resulted in a sneer. But it gets even more colorful.
And I don't even mean the sound, base ad hominem about a donation button. Read and shudder.
2. Switching X and Y: “mistake”
He complains that the x-axis starts at 48. But if I look closely myself, it is actually much worse: the x-axis does not start at 48 but at 2013! 2012 years are being hidden away!
He has trouble remembering what is X and what is Y in a graph.
His accusation here boils down to the fact that the neutral does not start at 0. He finds that misleading. Like a dyslexic on the Great National Dictee who is indignant when something is spelled with 'dt'.
3. Axes also tell a story
Maarten gets confused by axes that don't start at 02Y axis magnifies HUGELY: https://x.com/mkeulemans/status/1591788854708764672?s=20. Logarithmic axes 'hide' the fact that in reality it is much steeper3Logarithmic obfuscation: https://x.com/mkeulemans/status/1613700310685343744?s=20. He also finds the use of two y-axes suspicious4MC over multiple y-axes https://virusvaria.nl/ongehoorde-kritiek-van-maarten-keulemans-deel-2/#:~:text=As%20links%20is%20anders%20dan%20as%20rechts. He sees that as deception: the wappies are constantly trying to mislead us!
Basically he gets involved in things he doesn't understand and then complains about being misled. Of course, he could have just spent a little more time understanding what it says. At least – you can hope that would have helped.
The fact that a y-axis that does not start at zero is “manipulative” is one thing classic layman's misunderstanding. In scientific literature, whether it is statistics, econometrics or epidemiology, it is common to cut off the y-axis.
- An absolute zero adds nothing if the variation is relatively small.
- A full range from zero to sixty would squash all nuances, especially since nothing can be seen between 0 and 45.
- Graphs about changes, trends and correlations should illustrate differences. Therefore, you scale the axis to the relevant interval.
You literally learn this in the first week of a basic course in scientific visualization, but when Maarten looks through a telescope he shouts: 'Deception! This looks much bigger than it is!'
These are major indications of… unfamiliarity with data? This science journalist has never thought about what graphs actually are, how they tell a story.
4. Which 'heart medicine'?
He asks questions without really being interested. This is also evident when he doesn't even bother to think about 'which heart medicine' he is talking about. As if it were about a specific medicine. Sloths. Medicines have their own ATC classifications depending on their purpose. Here will be the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification are intended, developed by WHO. Appropriately, main group C contains cardiovascular medications.
ATC main group C
C = Cardiovascular system
This includes almost all medicines aimed at:
- hart
- blood vessels
- blood pressure
- heart rhythm
- heart failure
Common subgroups
- C01 – Cardiac therapy
(bv. digoxin, anti-arrhythmic) - C02 – Antihypertensiva
- C03 – Diuretic
- C07 – Beta blockers
- C08 – Calcium antagonists
- C09 – ACE-remmers & ARB’s
- C10 – Lipidenverlagers (statins)
Examples
- Metoprolol → C07AB02
- Enalapril → C09AA02
- Furosemide → C03CA01
- Atorvastatin → C10AA05
Let's check if it's correct, I found the source within two minutes.5Source graph https://jarle.substack.com/p/norway-continued-increase-in-cardiac Yes, it was true.
What a lazy, incompetent, bogus propaganda propagandist. And then quickly add some misinformation: “My guess: different prescribing guideline.” Does anyone care about Maarten's gamble? He must have made another quick phone call: “what excuse can I use?” Such a change in regulations would be drastic and certainly documented and internationally coordinated. There is no trace of it.
And such a guideline, does it also increase over the years...? Manmanman. Dataism with a megaphone.
These data can be shaped even more dramatically. With trend lines or, as here, by comparing the increase in two 5-year periods: the percentage increase from 2016-2020 (blue) and 2020-2024 (purple) for the different age groups per 1000 inhabitants.
How can someone constantly display his ignorance and still be taken seriously by readers who say they appreciate a quality newspaper? It's really serious. That amiable writer with his smooth social chat once again made it clear that not much is happening in his head. In his position that looks very much like culpable negligence.
Maarten prefers to see a Y-axis starting at 0, without cherry-picked ages - then you will automatically see that there is actually nothing special going on in the younger cohorts... Keep going, people!
Or not? Here all ages per 1000, men (blue) and women (orange) separately:
References
- 1Corona Murder case: https://virusvaria.nl/de-corona-moordzaak/
- 2Y axis magnifies HUGELY: https://x.com/mkeulemans/status/1591788854708764672?s=20
- 3Logarithmic obfuscation: https://x.com/mkeulemans/status/1613700310685343744?s=20
- 4
- 5
I needed the FHI tables to convince myself that 2022 is not the 1st year in which the vaccinated are part of the graph, as Keulemans claims, but the 2nd.
In my opinion, the dividing line between before and after vaccination would have been better placed in the middle between 2020 and 2021 instead of 2020.
The graph for all ages shows an increase from 2015; that fits in with Keulemans (increase started before vaccinations).
By the way, the article contains a bit too much swearing for my taste (“virtuous…”).
I'm really sick of all this nonsense about donation buttons. Check out what kind of building they are in. Who sponsors that?
Keep an eye on this: this is not about Norway or how the figures actually work. It's about his 'criticism'. Let me unpack one random cohort for you. This Norwegian source does not go back further than 2004. The increase was already underway there.
This would make it possible to nuance the bar graph (the 'dramatic presentation') - although the kink will certainly remain a problem in 2020.
But that is probably all too difficult, therefore too time-consuming and too unimportant. That can be covered up with excuses. Scoring points cheaply, that's what it's all about.
Thanks for calling MK to order, but it won't make much difference. I'm afraid that this fungus, in his own eyes, has already risen to such a height that nothing touches him anymore.
It never ceases to amaze me that adult gentlemen can go on such rants - and at the same time think so poorly and uncritically. If they have to go all the way to Norway to dig up figures, you can bet there is cherry picking.
Just checked in the Netherlands: this is the state of affairs there in ATC code C:
2020 61.886
2021 59.986
2022 59.743
2023 59.934
2024 60.373
In short: Anton, you have once again fallen into a trap set by the anti-vaxers. And you are now dutifully doing what those anti-vaxers prefer: attacking those who do look at it critically. (And of course I'm the first to admit that I shot from the hip, for example with the swapping of the x and y axes!)
By the way: I find qualifications such as 'virtue retarded' and 'lazy, incompetent, false propaganda propagandist' disappointing and I leave it to you. Why on earth would I be pro-vaccination? Everyone should know that, right?
Source for Dutch figures: https://www.gipdatabank.nl/databank?infotype=g&label=00-totaal&tabel_g_00-totaal=B_01-basis&geg=vs&spec=&item=
And I invite you: just look up these numbers for, say, the five best vaccinated and five worst vaccinated European countries?
Illustrating a fiction with a picture and presenting it as fact is “critical viewing?” Haha
I'm curious about the increase in heart medication in 2025. In 2012 it was still a combination of 7 drugs, called "the golden seven", but the side effects were so intense that it became "the golden 5" and so less and less and more lifestyle advice, but with an aging population, so there are no significant differences. In 2020, no one was allowed to go to the doctor with heart complaints and for many it turned out not to be necessary. After the injection campaign started, medication use initially decreased, partly due to the many cardiac arrests that people did not survive. Despite more conscious (read more carefully, especially in young people who suddenly have to visit a cardiologist more often...) prescribing, use is increasing while a decrease would be more logical. I will be concerned if it does not quickly become clear that it was propaganda because there are already so many victims.
My knowledge of cardiology concerns the Netherlands, so I rely on people like Steve Kirsch, Aseem Malhotra and others regarding the figures from abroad and of course Anton and others. These are all people who, without any self-interest, are seriously concerned about the future of people who have been injected with MRI, including pregnant women.
Mr. Keulemans, your undertone with words like “donate button Steve” (and you are allowed to do that) provokes opposition, which you then abuse because you supposedly always admit your mistakes “off the cuff” because the others have to go all the way to Norway, etc. We canceled De Volkskrant because of you. Partly because of you, both my parents did not survive the corona period (not because of Covid itself but because of the measures), so it goes a bit further than words. Thank you for your response here, but it came very close to this (very reliable) site that I trusted.
Day “c”, perhaps it would be most useful if you email (initial dot last name at newspaper title dot nl). You're now calling me a murderer, and I'm curious why you feel that way.
Mr Keulemans, this is exactly what you always do. I am not calling you a murderer (maybe that is the voice of your conscience? I hope so!), but look up the definition of murderer and you will read that I am NOT calling you that. Perhaps you always jump to conclusions so quickly and shoot from the hip too often, even based on scientific substantiation that gives a different sound than your side of the story? The reason I don't use my full name has to do with my family, you will have to respect that. By the way, it has been proven that my parents died from the corona measures. You have contributed to the propaganda and you continue to do so, so you are complicating the path to justice for the many victims and relatives. I don't feel that way, that's true!
Day 'c', you write: "partly because of you, both my parents did not survive the corona period", that's why.
Anyway, the invitation stands.
“Going on a rampage” is a bad thing, isn't it? And then I also held back. I'll just peel off your comment.
The fallacy/framing
Nagging about Steve Kirsch's donation button is a form of framing, in this case to make him suspicious or ridiculous in the eyes of your readers. That is an 'ad hominem' fallacy, nothing substantive, and that sounds a bit cheap coming from someone who pays his rent by writing bread for a concern partly sponsored by government contributions. Easy to talk from your position of virtue in your luxurious office environment. That regarding 'virtue' and 'ad hominem'. Easy, right?
'Virtuous' ad hominem
Throwing in such a fallacy is of a questionably low intellectual level. You can't go much lower on the argumentation ladder. The qualification 'Retarded' is then quite adequate. It really could have been worse:
All joking aside: Just don't do those ad hominems anymore, you're way too smart for that...
From 'trick propaganda'
Even in this answer you are again pushing your pro-coronavirus agenda. These are Norwegian figures, which clearly do not match the claim that corona shots would lead to a reduction in heart problems. We see such claims in all kinds of studies. According to a recent, much cited French research as much as 25% to 30% fewer heart problems.
How does that fit with the apparently rising heart problems in very highly vaccinated Norway? Then what on earth is going on in that country? Or with that research? Those are the questions at stake.
But what do you do? You're going into sting propaganda mode. Because oh dear, imagine if those injections did NOT protect against heart problems...!? Because that is the focus. Not 'anti-vax' rhetoric about vaccine damage or death.
Talking about “uncritical thinking”.
‘Vals’
So which 'false' (another loaded word on my own account) deflection technique do you use? You're just going to talk about something else. “It doesn't seem that way in the Netherlands.” So what? I didn't hear you say to those French researchers: "We don't see that 25%-30% improvement in heart problems at all in the Netherlands. How do you explain that?" Then you won't notice that. Not even shooting from the hip.
You say that you look critically, but you don't act accordingly. You didn't even look at the data. You 'shoot from the hip' on a graph that you want to burn down a priori without understanding it or even looking at it properly. Then nothing remains of your criticisms. Even from the hip you only shoot in one direction. That indicates incompetence, you just don't do this, you should do your best, especially in your position.
Looking inside your skull
And now you ask me 'Why on earth would I be in favor of vaccination?' But Maarten, how am I supposed to know that? I just note that it is so. There are all kinds of reasons and circumstances. Because vaccination helps, maybe? Because vaccinations have saved millions of lives? Because you have cognitive dissonance and/or you have completely painted yourself into a corner? Because the government is an important advertiser and you get the scoop? Just make it up. I just shoot from the hip.
You are really the one who has to find out for yourself, at least if you really don't know yet. If you want someone to look into your head, it is better to ask a psychologist or psychiatrist. I know a neurologist who would probably be willing to do that.
By the way, I would like to thank you for your invitation to historically map the heart medications of 10 countries. On a previous occasion I did a lot of work in the hope that you would respond substantively to it. I'm not going to do that again. I just saw that you placed a graph on X. I can also cherry pick, even from the same dataset. Take a look at the number of heart medication users since 2020.
(I'll tell you: it doesn't mean anything anyway because they are absolutes, there is no history, no age categories, etc. etc. and it is also completely off-topic.)
I object to the negative designation: Antivaxer. Vaccination is nothing more than injecting a healthy body with toxic substances, in the hope of achieving something positive and not causing any damage to the body. We have long been told that this is how this principle works, but there is no evidence of it. Whether vaccination works or not, and whether it is harmful or not, cannot be determined. It's not even scientific. More trial and error. Or a faith, if you prefer. If you don't like that, then you're an anti-vaxer? I say, that's totally fine, I'm an anti-vaxer. That seems the healthiest to me. There are also provaxers, and that seems more risky to me, but everyone has to know that for themselves. Faith cannot be guided or explained scientifically. So antivaxer is a positive word and, in my opinion, a healthy position, nothing more and nothing less.
Interesting discussion, and at first I didn't want to get involved, but the temptation is too great. I have no intention of offending or offending anyone. I would really like to better understand why emotions are running so high on this subject.
Before I continue: no, I do not have a medical background, but I am the proud owner of a reasonably healthy body, and I would like to decide for myself what type of medical procedures I undergo.
Brief description of how someone can move from being relatively vaccination neutral to 'anti-vaxx'.
Before the Covid period, I was relatively critical about vaccinations, but I did, for example, take hepatitis B and Tetanus vaccines in 2019 for a trip to Vietnam. Flu shot never taken more instinctively than substantiated. Only learned more later, and then the decision was only confirmed.
In December 2020 we got covid. At least a positive PCR test at the GGD indicated this, later I learned that the PCR test was never intended for use as it was used. And also extremely unreliable.
After a week and a relatively mild course, we assumed that we had built up natural immunity. The life-saving vaccines were offered about 2 months later, in early 2021. I had already read several articles, including one in Nature that confirmed that natural immunity is -logically- superior to vaccinations. The article in Nature ended with the advice to vaccinate anyway. Separate. Called the GGD and asked whether it was useful to get a vaccine after an infection, and tried to get an explanation as to why that would be better. They didn't get any further than: 'it's just better'. The RIVM also recommended vaccination and the website stated that natural immunity was inferior to vaccines.
In the meantime, we understood that a new form of vaccination had been introduced, the mRNA vaccines. Formerly known as immune therapy. Also delved into that and tried to understand the differences with the traditional vaccines. Vaccines that passed tests in record time. By definition, it is therefore impossible to determine long-term effects. So we let that one pass us by. I have never been seriously ill again, but I have had very unpleasant experiences with QR code access.
Then I also delved into traditional vaccines. Confidence in the usefulness and effectiveness of vaccinations feels almost religious. But what is that trust actually based on? I have come to the conclusion that this trust is based on carefully maintained myths. The panic about measles almost seems medieval. People who do not want to have their child vaccinated because they believe that natural childhood illnesses are preferable to artificial interventions are denounced.
You can call me an anti-vaxxer in the meantime, I don't understand how that can be an insult. There may well be vaccines that are useful, but both the American and Dutch vaccine schedules are becoming increasingly extensive. No research has been done into the consequences of all these vaccinations, often administered simultaneously. That is what Robert Kennedy is asking for, decent testing of all those childhood vaccines and freedom of choice and insight into possible risks. But in the Dutch media, Kennedy is consistently called an 'anti-vaxxer'. The mainstream media, including De Volkskrant, consistently portray Kennedy as a dangerous madman. People who take the time to really listen and see what he is saying see an extremely reasonable, intelligent man who wants to improve the health of the average American who has gone completely out of control. Against the pharmaceutical lobby. The masses in the Netherlands are lulled to sleep by our mainstream media. Abolishing hepB injections for newborns doesn't even make the news.
As a thought experiment, try to imagine that vaccines do more harm than good, is that really such a strange proposition? Try to empathize with parents whose children have been maimed for life or even died. Are they all anti-vaxxers and what purpose do they serve through publicity? The people who are critical of injections have nothing to gain, in fact they have a lot to lose. Could it be that they raise valid points and that a pharmaceutical/medical complex actually has a great interest in vilifying and ridiculing critics.
I don't know if Maarten reads this, but I hope he makes an attempt to be open to people who are critical of the current state of affairs.
Thanks Cees, I certainly read it, but I'm also on holiday at the moment, so I won't answer too promptly.
“immune therapy”
Would that be the same as so-called immunotherapy? Is that also based on mRNA?
Immunotherapy is the same as immunotherapy; This is a treatment that attempts to make the immune system stronger so that it can attack cancer better. The goal of immunotherapy is to make the tumors smaller.
( https://www.erasmusmc.nl/nl-nl/kankerinstituut/patientenzorg/behandelingen/immunotherapie )
mRNA in cancer control has been experimental for much longer, and still is.
In 1990, researchers from the University of Wisconsin (Wolff et al.) showed that administered mRNA could cause cells to produce proteins. Soon after, scientists began to speculate that this type of coding RNA could be used to train the immune system against both viruses and tumor antigens.
Around 2005–2010 it became clear that lipid nanoparticles could be used to protect mRNA and get it into cells.
Before 2020, more than 20 clinical trials with mRNA immunotherapy were already underway.
These mRNAs usually coded for proteins typically found on cancer cells, such as MAGE-A3, NY-ESO-1, CEA, PSMA, etc.
Results were very mixed: sometimes mild immune activation, rarely true tumor regression. Many side effects, biodistribution problems, etc.
Many studies were funded by BioNTech and CureVac, who then wanted to refine their platforms — the later COVID jabs simply used the same technological framework they were testing for cancer.
mRNA had therefore never been used successfully. It's just relatively easy and quick to design and put together, which is why the industry is pushing it. The Covid emergency broke the law and governments quickly demanded a vaccine. That was the golden opportunity for this experimental technology.
Back to the fire
After the loose, false, irresponsible speculation about where the smoke (increased use of heart medication) comes from, MK everything under the belief: 'Covid was terrible and vaccines brought salvation'.
Now no more smoke (increase in heart medication) but fire in Norway (increase in heart and cancer deaths. See:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10801945/
Furthermore, in terms of fire, e.g. demonstrably a lot of cardiac deaths in the US in the pre-vaccine Covid period. (“You see, it was that terrible corona that caused cardiac death”). To preventively not to perpetuate the believer in their faith. The following:
Eline van de Broek has shown that the stagnant patient flow, which cardiologists noted early on, is also probably to blame. (Maybe MK has already been forgotten?).
P.S. due to limited circulation in the first year (see Insightful RIVM research), by all measures, it is much more likely that the above perverse effect of fear and measures played a role.
Clearly an effect of measures and the extreme fear of Covid from WHO, OMT and our government (for demonstrable, objective, extreme perceived danger of this bleak wind of fear, see MdH's research viapeil.nl into estimated IFR in different age categories).
However, after avoiding cardiac care in the first corona year, it appears that excess mortality still occurs during the omicron heart period and cancer also leads to more mortality. So there is still an additional vaccination effect, also on cancer? Could just be.
Or was the then widely spreading omicron now the culprit and responsible after all.
This offers another escape for the persistent believers. However, it does require a revision of their previous acknowledgment that Omicron was milder. We'll see.
I made a mistake. Actually meant to say 'gene therapy', but I wrote it a bit too quickly I think. In itself it is still correct, because before that time it had only been used as immune therapy. More luck than wisdom. A discussion can easily take a different direction.
I’d love to have a live 1:1 chat with Maarten about what the data shows.
Emotion(s) are running high on this subject.
Let me also use a metaphor.
I am an avid metal detector seeker.
We, those searchers, are regularly confronted with people who walk past and shout “beep, beep, beep” and then laugh even harder when they follow after shouting “have you found the treasure yet?”
No idea what makes them laugh so much, but “humanity” seems to have a need to show others that they themselves are “normal” and that they think the same as the big picture.
Explaining what such a hobby adds to you as a person has no effect on this response at all. It also makes no difference to the historical archaeological finds that have been made as a result.
You are and will remain a fool if you walk around with something like that.
Only when you find their lost wedding ring on the beach, only then, but only in the safety of 1 on 1, will they be willing to admit that it is a nice hobby.
However, as soon as the group is present again, they obediently shout “beep, beep, beep” “have you found the treasure yet?”
There is really more investigative journalism here than just measuring each other up.
Maarten, your point about the guidelines is not a wild guess. Target values for antilipemics and antihypertensives have been/are being reduced in all European countries (thanks to the ESC guidelines). This means that more and more people are eligible for these resources (which belong to the C ATC group). You can take this on my authority: I've been in that business for years, and can send you links if you want; I am listed as the author of the most recent Dutch cardiology guideline (for statins and antihypertensives).
Maarten, your plaster database link shows the number of prescriptions, not the number of users. If you convert it to the number of users, you also see an increase in users of heart medication between 2020 and 2025 (but less spectacular than compared to Norway).
Maarten/Anton: where the actual large increases in users can be seen is in the B ATC Group (antithrombotic B01). There is also a guideline component here (more and more people are eligible for antithrombotic agents), but perhaps also a vaccine component. Both can be the cause of a number of things and it is (in my opinion) impossible to say whether it is due to a guideline, vaccine, measures or everything together when you look at these numbers.
-How can we find a conclusive answer to this question?
My suggestion is to look VERY carefully at this publication by my former colleagues:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40172984/
At national level (CBS micro data) we look at the incidence of pulmonary embolism in the years 20-22 compared to 2015-19. I quote from the abstract: 'Pulmonary embolism incidence in the Dutch population decreased from 2015 to 2019 but markedly increased by 23% (95% confidence interval 20%-26%), 52% (48%-56%), and 7% (4%-9%) in 2020-22 (vs. 2019), respectively.'
You will receive antithrombotic drugs for pulmonary embolism. The increase in pulmonary embolism was mainly seen in 2020 (measures/changed protocols including long-term ICU admission) and in 2021 (measures plus vaccination) and then disappeared again. This means that the guideline is no longer an explanation (pulmonary embolism incidence actually decreased until 2020 and there were no guideline changes for antithrombotic agents between 2015-2022) and measures or vaccination (or both) remain as an explanation.
Of course you can say: 'and covid'. But that is only possible if you believe in the Covid spaghetti monster. You are probably familiar with Stefan Lanka's experiments and also the criticism of the Drosten paper (where authors use a computer model to determine Sarscov2 and then develop the PCR based on it). Long story short: there was no Sarscov2 and therefore no Covid. What remains is vaccine and/or measures.
Why not have a discussion about this in a room where we sit around the table together. If you want, I think I can still do that at my old employer with my old academic friends. Perhaps we can then come to an agreement.
Maarten and Anton both have my e-mail address and can email me if they show interest in this meeting (if both Anton and Maarten see benefit in such a conversation, I think I can make it possible to have the conversation in that hospital where I worked with my former colleagues).
I still notice it.
I thank Mr. Keulemans for the invitation, that is a waste of time. “A murderer is someone who deliberately kills (murder)”. The circumstances that caused my parents to die are very complex, but they would still have lived healthily if it had not been for the propaganda surrounding corona. (Except for a fatal accident for which most people pay insurance... this is irrelevant but I'll write it down anyway for Mr. Keulemans). Is spreading propaganda as done by, among others, Mr. Keulemans and his editor-in-chief of the Volkskrant “speaking with one mouth” called “complicit in the suffering”? No idea, I have no words for it. I wish justice for all victims and relatives and am extremely grateful to those who strive for it! Anyway, Willem and Steve, I hope Mr. Keulemans accepts your invitations. Mr Keulemans, have a pleasant continuation of your holiday. Greetings from c
The increase in pulmonary embolism diagnoses in 2020 is all the more remarkable because at the time pulmonary embolism was sometimes mistaken for corona, as you have demonstrated.
‘Er was geen sars cov 2 en dus ook geen covid.
Blijft over vaccin en/ of maatregelen’.
Mooie stelling waar ik het wel mee eens ben.
Maatregelen (lockdown, afstand houden, handen en karretjes supermarkt wassen, mondkapjes dragen, buiten afstand houden en uiteindelijk vaccineren) hebben denk ik m.n., misschien zelfs wel uitsluitend, een angst aanjagend effect gehad dat alleen gedempt kom worden met opvolgen van deze zaken (of wellicht het gebruiken van lidocaine ;-).
Zou het kunnen dat (naast de door jou gestelde misdiagnostiek t.a.v. longembolie) deze angstgolf juist ook mensen vatbaar gemaakt heeft voor infecties. Uit CDC onderzoek bleek dat kans op overlijden bij opname met covid groter werd, naast diabetes en overgewicht, door het hebben van een angststoornis.
Hyperventilatie wordt ook gezien als angst stoornis . Kwam ergens ook hypothese (van een ambulance medewerker) tegen dat mogelijk ook mensen met lage saturatie waarden (kan optreden na een hyperventilatie aanval) ten onrechte aangezien zouden kunnen zijn als covid patient.
Kan me voorstellen als op grond hiervan (en natuurlijk een overgevoelige positieve PCR test) geïntubeerd met een flink wat buikvet op de buik beademd wordt (de middenrif ademhaling zodoende blokkerend) je er niet beter op wordt en het je mogelijk zelfs fataal wordt.
Hoe denk jij hierover.
Zouden trouwens die bolletjes die Maarten bij Eric Snijders gezien heeft niet gewoon exosomen kunnen zijn, bijproducten van de ontstoken cellen. Correlatie tussen hun aanwezigheid en een positieve PCR test op covid is zeker nog geen causaliteit.
Het knippen en plakwerk met computer om virus te identificeren komt mij onbetrouwbaar over.
Maar blijkbaar werkt zien (van virus middels cryo EM) bij sommigen tot geloven!! Blijft voor mij een Sinterklaas verhaal.
(Bij kleine goedgelovige kinderen schijnt het geloof in Sinterklaas zelf overeind te blijven als iemand zich voor hun ogen omkleed als Sinterklaas. Ik zie hier wel enige analogie ;-).
(Sluit niet uit dat virussen sowieso commensaal zijn en niet het gif dat ze met hun naam toegeschreven gekregen hebben).
Benieuwd naar je kijkt hierop.
Ergens vind ik het verbijsterend, zo’n stelling in ontkenning van werkelijk álle feiten. En ik snap hem oprecht niet.
Denk je wérkelijk dat alle wetenschapsinstanties ter wereld, alle labs, plus alle universiteiten in een massale vorm van massapsychose geschoten? We hebben hier gewoon te maken met een virus dat is geïsoleerd, gecontroleerd vermenigvuldigd in cellijnen, is overgebracht naar proefdieren (wat ze ziek maakt) en genetisch tot op de laatste RNA-letter is gesequenset – zie de gedetailleerde stambomen van de virusevolutie, gebaseerd op *honderdduizenden* keren die routine: virus isoleren uit patiënten, genoom sequensen met de Sangermethode, code uploaden naar database.
Volgens mij bedoel je gewoon: ik vond de maatregelen buitenproportioneel. Dat kun je natuurlijk vinden – en een deel van de maatregelen wás ook buitenproportioneel, zoals ik veelvuldig heb geconstateerd. Maar om nu te zeggen dat het coronavirus zélf een hersenschim was? Dat lijkt me echt aantoonbare apekool.
Over buitenproportionele maatregelen, zie oa:
https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/we-hebben-winkelwagentjes-en-volleyballen-voor-niets-lopen-schrobben~b8319430/
https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-opinie/we-hebben-onze-handen-misschien-voor-niets-stuk-gewassen-maar-niemand-die-het-hardop-zegt~bfb947d8/
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/afstand-houden-thuiswerken-scholen-dicht-waren-de-nederlandse-coronamaatregelen-effectief~b0734614/
I'm not a fan of Maarten either. But I have learned that data analyzes can only be done properly if you have thorough knowledge of the subject. That is certainly the case with 'science journalists'. They just write about what someone else says. In addition, one must keep a close eye on what a scientist claims, what criticism he receives for this, and how this is subsequently countered. You can learn something from that.
From there, I find it difficult to estimate the truth of all that data.
But if I peer between the eyelids and add up all the (micro) data regarding cardiovascular damage, the phenomena of myocarditis and vasculitis from Covax, medication intake, etc., then it does not surprise me that one of the longer-term effects of MRI vaccination causes cardiovascular damage. Perhaps not yet of such a nature that thousands of them would fall over. But enough to prove it statistically.
So without thorough knowledge of the subject, you think you can make a statement... 😉 Be careful. I wouldn't just dare to do that. That will be a huge job, if you want to substantiate that. There are also trends of medications that are becoming more or less popular among cardiologists (usually less so) and a serious patient really needs to be prescribed something. Figure it out. In the Netherlands, the number of patients prescribed heart medication is increasing quite sharply (5% since 2020), but that does not say everything.
For example, there is a subcategory that is declining sharply. I think that is just as worthy of investigation. Then you should also ask cardiologists whether they a) even know or can estimate which subcategories these could be and b) why. Purely based on figures, it is all less clear than mortality, even though medicines are an important cause of death. Dick Bijl often mentions that.
And even then: how bad is that, medication as a cause of death in seriously ill people? “He was going to die anyway; at least we tried…” or “He did die from the side effects, but otherwise he would have died much sooner” or “…at least he had a few extra good years.” It is really a completely different story than preventively injecting healthy people. Including children.
“All children aged 6 months and older are eligible for vaccination.” (juni 2022)
Based on minuscule trials. Pfizer only had ~1,700 children between 6 months and 4 years in the vaccine group, Moderna had ~2,300 children in that age range.
The follow-up duration was ≤ 2 months after the second dose in babies with a blank learning immune system.
The first cut is the deepest.
The effectiveness was measured in relative risk reduction of mild infections, not of hospitalization or death, which occurs extremely rarely or never in healthy children (after all, they are vaccinated). And so we chat away from the subject again.
The world is full of rabbit holes. Anyone who tries to cover such a rabbit hole with fallacies and bullshit arguments must either ask themselves why that is, or have themselves thoroughly checked.
Exploring such a rabbit hole is usually prohibited. I have experienced that very often, but afterwards I was able to go my own way or it even had a positive result so that many more people benefited from it. Since 2020, the dens have been closed and tamped and are monitored. My university graduate children were always able to continue my work, but that also changed immediately in the spring of 2020. People with fallacies and bullshit arguments help that surveillance consciously or unconsciously, paid or unpaid and often with a passion reminiscent of religion. The government goes the extra mile with letters to young parents, for example, with the text “You have not had your child vaccinated…!!!” Very threatening, while it could be that someone has been vaccinated but not registered because that option is (still) available in our country. Privacy is also a rabbit hole that they are covering and tamping down. It has nothing to do with health (and safety), which is very clearly visible. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly visible…
Certainly enough to prove statistically!
I am in the wind energy business myself. Not because I think the climate is falling over, or other motivating reasons. No, I'm just an (E) technician through and through, and I just think it's fantastic how all those different parts are linked together into a workable whole.
And I also do a lot of analysis on that, and look at common malfunctions. How to improve or prevent.
Now there was someone who linked the status list to canceled materials. The idea behind that was quite interesting. A 'layman' could therefore reasonably estimate which part was possibly defective. But blindly relying on such systems/data analyzes is not always smart.
A wind turbine is made up of various data buses. And now it is true that CAN buses require different distribution boards than serial buses.
Yet the most frequently written off material in the event of a SERIAL bus error was a CAN distribution board. A planner/work planner then directs a technician, looks at the list of most frequently written off materials, and provides the wrong printout.
The technician replaces that PCB, but the fault/data interruption is not resolved and will return.
The system therefore continues to maintain itself. Another line was charged for this fault and the indicator went from 50% to 51%. The CAN print was replaced for these faults. Especially in larger organizations with many 'ordinary' technicians (without thorough system knowledge), the first-time-right indicator will quickly drop due to these data analyses.
In fact, all kinds of other analyzes are also flawed as a result. Development needs to develop a better print because it breaks so often, etc.
The correct analysis is that the technicians need better training because they replace parts that have nothing to do with the fault.
But I think we mean the same thing. The human body is complex. Simply putting some data together and drawing conclusions from it is very difficult for a layman. Then you really need to have some insider information and knowledge.
Frank van de Goot therefore also advocates allowing health insurance to continue for a little longer after death and thus the possibility of recommending an autopsy to surviving relatives. With more autopsies, more clarity in causes of death. Theo Schetters uses different data sets than Ronald Meester recently explained, thus providing more clarity in excess mortality. It's all complex, but in the meantime we all have to deal with it.
Where does Theo Schetters say that, about that other dataset? Was that about admissions, hospitalization, causes of death, mortality rates? Do you mean the recent conversation at DNW? What clarity did he mean, do you know?
I do indeed think he meant that conversation at DNW the other day. Listened to this yesterday and he talks about this. I think it is best to listen to this yourself to hear exactly what he says/means.
Indeed, that conversation is what I mean. Also the data from the nursing homes. Have I listened too hopefully or is there something useful in it?
Maarten, thank you for your detailed response.
Offers a lot to shoot for. I will now limit myself to Sars-Cov-2 (Covid).
I notice a significant fear regarding Covid, and I think you share this with the regular Volkskrant readers you claim to serve. Fear is also ingrained in the name, S stands for Severe.
The question is whether this fear is justified and has not been unnecessarily fed in the mainstream media, including our Volkskrant (indeed, I am also a reader myself).
After an initial downplay of fear by various authorities, including in the Netherlands, the WHO subsequently focused entirely on fear and this was duly followed almost everywhere.
At the beginning of 2020, nothing else seemed to exist. Even the common flu disappeared completely (was all, including older forms, still tested?).
If you had flu-like symptoms, you were tested specifically for Covid with a hypersensitive PCR test
(The sensitivity of the test, the number of selected cycles was released and I suspect unnecessarily high. Logically: if you as a company did not register the covid and someone later turned out to have this seriously, then you were not in the right place.)
Suppose that in addition to an active 'old', undetected flu, you still had a trace of Covid, this was guaranteed to be removed (on one or a few small parts of the entire Covid fingerprint) and you were guaranteed to be branded as a Covid victim.
(Regardless of the question of whether you were contagious with that positive Covid test or whether it was responsible for your flu symptoms.)
In short, fear was blinding at that time and in blind panic the Serious Deadly Sars-Cov-2 was seen everywhere.
The result was measures that were particularly detrimental to the socio-economically disadvantaged and people covered by the Wlz, and led to 'Covid' mortality among them.
The well-endowed did not die (I think it was observed in a Nivel study).
It is a pity that nothing has been done in the Volkskrant to temper this fear and thus weaken the call for measures that have proven to have perverse effects (including vaccination, but more about that later).
But apparently the journalists and editors shared the fear of their readers and thus a kind of small, but no less tragic 'ant fear spiral of death' was created.
[In advance: to my dismay, the web links I wanted to add in this response are lost. This comment with links is on my substack!]
Hello gentlemen,
Back from vacation I read your comments. And I have to say it from my heart: your position on this subject remains something that I absolutely cannot understand.
I think I understand the underlying feeling. Your reactions express such dissatisfaction and frustration. One has been kicked out of his hospital, the other feels like a laughed at metal detector seeker, the next is still furious about the corona measures, Anton seems bitter that I work in such a 'luxury office environment'.
Everything is allowed, of course. But the fact that it then leads to an uncritical embrace of the complete corona-skeptical bingo card truly surprises me.
Just a few recurring themes:
>>“There was no corona, only PCR test results, and they are not intended for this” (Cees Mul)
There is some truth in this: a PCR test is indeed only useful if you use it to confirm a suspected infection. Otherwise, a small percentage of false positives could be magnified into a strong signal of non-really existing 'patients'.
What Mul forgets, however: precisely for that reason, the GGD decided at the time to only apply the PCR test to people who already had covid-like symptoms. A pre-selection, to keep any false positives under control.
Not that it was really necessary. It soon became clear that the PCR test has a very high specificity. If it gives a positive result, it is extremely reliable and you can be assured that it really is SARS-COV-2 - after all, the test looks at the genetic fingerprint of that virus. And that it concerns at least tens of thousands of virus particles: at a lower virus count the test had a cut-off point.
And, as professor of medical microbiology Bert Niesters (UMCG) once said to me: 'Those particles do not just blow in.' They are created on the spot, in your throat or nose.
Yet another piece of evidence that I find convincing: the number of positives in the test street turned out to be a good predictor of the number of hospital admissions two weeks later.
>>“That Keulemans is a dirty propaganda propagandist.”
The standard reflex. If I'm going against disinformation, I'm sure it's because I'm pro-vaccine, or even 'because the government is a major advertiser,' right?
But that is not the case. I'm just neutral. I don't care what everyone does or injects or not: I am not the vaccination doctor. I'm not in any camp, except that as a journalist I'm always on the side of the regular, everyday subscriber trying to understand what's happening in the world. Not on the side of 'the government' or 'the industry': we are completely independent, which is stated in our editorial statute, our rule book.
What exactly I think doesn't really matter. I try to represent as honestly as possible what I read in the professional literature and hear from the most relevant experts. And no, I am not a 'scientist', just as a sports journalist is not a top athlete himself. Yet another strange misunderstanding.
In the meantime, we (fortunately) live in a country where vaccination is a free choice. Simply because that is what we have democratically agreed with each other. And for years before corona, I spoke to experts who pointed out that the government cannot argue for or against vaccines.
As professor Hedwig te Molder said in one of my pieces: 'You should not say on the one hand: parents can choose for themselves, as is the official policy, and immediately add: but if you choose against it, that is irrational and you follow your emotions too much.'
That really stuck with me and I have repeated it many times since. For example, I drew criticism when Hugo de Jonge, against the advice of the OMT, played the moral blackmail card: 'It is the fault of the unvaccinated that we are still in lockdown.'
Quote from professor of health communication Julia de Weert, in one of my articles about this: 'You want to get people on board. And then it is counterproductive to say that those who do not get vaccinated are in fact selfish. This only makes people more resistant. A missed opportunity.' Moreover, there are countless reasons why people do not get vaccinated, Van Weert emphasizes. “De Jonge now tars everyone with the same brush.”
>>“Vaccination is nothing more than injecting a healthy body with toxic substances, in the hope of achieving something positive and not causing any damage to the body. We have long been told that this principle works, but there is no evidence of it.” (Dom Beau)
There is also some truth in this: vaccination is, we will agree, inducing a mini-infection to train the memory of the immune system.
What is categorically incorrect, however, is that 'the evidence is lacking' that vaccines work. This is a classic from the anti-vax repertoire that builds on the fact that boosters and some new vaccines are usually no longer tested against a placebo, but against an existing vaccine. That makes sense: if a vaccine against a certain infectious disease is already available, it would be unethical to give a group just a placebo.
In reality, however, completely new vaccines are indeed tested double-blind against a placebo. This also happened with the Covid shots.
>>“The vaccines were tested in record time. By definition, it is therefore impossible to determine long-term effects. So we let them pass us by.” (Cees Mul)
This is of course partly true. The vaccines came through the procedures faster, not because the procedures were shortened, but because there were (a) plenty of patients to test on, (b) tests were merged and (c) everyone was urgently looking for vaccines. The Covid vaccines are therefore also thought-provoking proof that a lot is possible if everyone puts their shoulders to the wheel.
But what about the long-term effects? Vaccinologists argue at this point that vaccines only have short-term side effects, immediately after the injection. That makes some sense. Medicines with long-term effects generally involve long-term use, which can accumulate in the body.
You don't have to expect anything like that with vaccination. The side effect is immediate (such as arm pain, but also thrombosis after AstraZeneca), or it is not, vaccinologists assume. What does sometimes come to light after a longer period of time are side effects that are so rare that it takes many vaccinations to notice them. A side effect such as myocarditis (20 to 40 times per million injections, depending on age and type of vaccine) is not found after 'only' tens of thousands of injections.
Yet I fundamentally agree with Cees' doubts. In principle, you cannot rule out a long-term side effect. That is also why the freedom to choose whether or not to inject is, in my opinion, so important. And it is a mistake that people with very normal, understandable concerns about the vaccine were dismissed as 'wappies' or irresponsible idiots.
$
Well, back to the statement that dominates this site: that the Covid vaccines have caused and continue to do a lot of damage, in terms of excess mortality, heart disease or other serious conditions.
Would it really? Would such a thing be conceivable?
At this point I see you (and the often politically motivated foreign supporters of that idea) constantly making the same mistake: you go on a 'fishing expedition', hunting for unusual patterns. And in the hundreds of statistics from hundreds of countries you can ALWAYS find something suspicious.
Especially if, as Herman does, you adjust the definitions somewhat (assuming that excess mortality should actually be followed by undermortality and that this counts as additional excess mortality, for example). It is scientific thinking turned on its head: not trying to refute hypotheses, but rather looking for evidence FOR your hypothesis - and explaining away any counter-evidence.
Bear in mind that the predictions that the corona-skeptical movement previously made DID NOT HOLD. After the first wave, corona was not over, as was widely claimed at the time - there was a second wave, a third, and a fourth. The corona period was not the start of permanent QR codes, as many claimed – the measures were scaled down.
The mRNA vaccines did not cause a massive outbreak of autoimmune diseases, as Theo Schetters assumed; people don't drop dead en masse on the street; blood clots have not been detected on a large scale; there is no international increase in the number of sudden cardiac arrests; and there are no structurally more or worse cancers diagnosed than before.
Oh, and the alleged massacres in nursing homes after the vaccination campaign? Every time I heard such a rumor, I followed it up: put me in touch with the nursing home in question, on a background basis if necessary? But the care homes in question always turned out not to exist, even after a thorough search.
I do know what convinces me personally that there is no such thing as massive 'vaccine damage'. If that were the case, you would see more deaths in the best vaccinated countries (hello Sweden!) than in poorly vaccinated countries such as Romania or Slovakia. And with each round of vaccinations, the hospitals would fill up with people who just survived.
Any claim that vaccines are secretly very harmful will have to answer at least these questions:
1/ What exactly are the many thorough, peer-reviewed, published studies that determine that there is no significant vaccine-related death or disease burden doing wrong? Like this one, this one or this one?
2/ As John Ioannidis showed, excess mortality per country correlates with the socio-economic differences in that country, and not with how many vaccines were given. Why not?
3/ If vaccines cause massive health damage, which ones? And why do we not see it structurally in the regular statistics on cancer and cardiovascular disease in all countries where the vaccines have been widely deployed?
4/ Why would supervisory authorities such as the Lareb, which even found the rare side effect myocarditis (incidence: approximately 20-40 in 1 million), not find such a side effect?
5/ Why should well-informed journalists like myself, with countless sources and confidential and personal connections to scientists, never hear about the horrific abuse that is apparently being kept under wraps here? Why is this not discussed at conferences and symposia?
If you have an answer to this, I'd love to hear it.
$
This brings me to the end of this (much too long) response.
Of course: you can assume that all doctors and universities in the world are in cahoots with each other and with the industry, that all supervisory bodies and watchdogs have been bribed, and that professional journalists like myself turn away en masse or are simply too stupid to understand it or too lazy to write it down.
That you see something here that all relevant scientists, professional associations, academic societies and RIVMs of the world have completely missed.
But gentlemen: I wouldn't count on it too much.
[In advance: to my dismay, the web links I wanted to add in this response are lost. This comment with links is on my substack!]
Hello gentlemen,
Back from vacation I read your comments. And I have to say it from my heart: your position on this subject remains something that I absolutely cannot understand.
I think I understand the underlying feeling. Your reactions express such dissatisfaction and frustration. One has been kicked out of his hospital, the other feels like a laughed at metal detector seeker, the next is still furious about the corona measures, Anton seems bitter that I work in such a 'luxury office environment'.
Everything is allowed, of course. But the fact that it then leads to an uncritical embrace of the complete corona-skeptical bingo card truly surprises me.
Just a few recurring themes:
>>“There was no corona, only PCR test results, and they are not intended for this” (Cees Mul)
There is some truth in this: a PCR test is indeed only useful if you use it to confirm a suspected infection. Otherwise, a small percentage of false positives could be magnified into a strong signal of non-really existing 'patients'.
What Mul forgets, however: precisely for that reason, the GGD decided at the time to only apply the PCR test to people who already had covid-like symptoms. A pre-selection, to keep any false positives under control.
Not that it was really necessary. It soon became clear that the PCR test has a very high specificity. If it gives a positive result, it is extremely reliable and you can be assured that it really is SARS-COV-2 - after all, the test looks at the genetic fingerprint of that virus. And that it concerns at least tens of thousands of virus particles: at a lower virus count the test had a cut-off point.
And, as professor of medical microbiology Bert Niesters (UMCG) once said to me: 'Those particles do not just blow in.' They are created on the spot, in your throat or nose.
Yet another piece of evidence that I find convincing: the number of positives in the test street turned out to be a good predictor of the number of hospital admissions two weeks later.
>>“That Keulemans is a dirty propaganda propagandist.”
The standard reflex. If I'm going against disinformation, I'm sure it's because I'm pro-vaccine, or even 'because the government is a major advertiser,' right?
But that is not the case. I'm just neutral. I don't care what everyone does or injects or not: I am not the vaccination doctor. I'm not in any camp, except that as a journalist I'm always on the side of the regular, everyday subscriber trying to understand what's happening in the world. Not on the side of 'the government' or 'the industry': we are completely independent, which is stated in our editorial statute, our rule book.
What exactly I think doesn't really matter. I try to represent as honestly as possible what I read in the professional literature and hear from the most relevant experts. And no, I am not a 'scientist', just as a sports journalist is not a top athlete himself. Yet another strange misunderstanding.
In the meantime, we (fortunately) live in a country where vaccination is a free choice. Simply because that is what we have democratically agreed with each other. And for years before corona, I spoke to experts who pointed out that the government cannot argue for or against vaccines.
As professor Hedwig te Molder said in one of my pieces: 'You should not say on the one hand: parents can choose for themselves, as is the official policy, and immediately add: but if you choose against it, that is irrational and you follow your emotions too much.'
That really stuck with me and I have repeated it many times since. For example, I drew criticism when Hugo de Jonge, against the advice of the OMT, played the moral blackmail card: 'It is the fault of the unvaccinated that we are still in lockdown.'
Quote from professor of health communication Julia de Weert, in one of my articles about this: 'You want to get people on board. And then it is counterproductive to say that those who do not get vaccinated are in fact selfish. This only makes people more resistant. A missed opportunity.' Moreover, there are countless reasons why people do not get vaccinated, Van Weert emphasizes. “De Jonge now tars everyone with the same brush.”
>>“Vaccination is nothing more than injecting a healthy body with toxic substances, in the hope of achieving something positive and not causing any damage to the body. We have long been told that this principle works, but there is no evidence of it.” (Dom Beau)
There is also some truth in this: vaccination is, we will agree, inducing a mini-infection to train the memory of the immune system.
What is categorically incorrect, however, is that 'the evidence is lacking' that vaccines work. This is a classic from the anti-vax repertoire that builds on the fact that boosters and some new vaccines are usually no longer tested against a placebo, but against an existing vaccine. That makes sense: if a vaccine against a certain infectious disease is already available, it would be unethical to give a group just a placebo.
In reality, however, completely new vaccines are indeed tested double-blind against a placebo. This also happened with the Covid shots.
>>“The vaccines were tested in record time. By definition, it is therefore impossible to determine long-term effects. So we let them pass us by.” (Cees Mul)
This is of course partly true. The vaccines came through the procedures faster, not because the procedures were shortened, but because there were (a) plenty of patients to test on, (b) tests were merged and (c) everyone was urgently looking for vaccines. The Covid vaccines are therefore also thought-provoking proof that a lot is possible if everyone puts their shoulders to the wheel.
But what about the long-term effects? Vaccinologists argue at this point that vaccines only have short-term side effects, immediately after the injection. That makes some sense. Medicines with long-term effects generally involve long-term use, which can accumulate in the body.
You don't have to expect anything like that with vaccination. The side effect is immediate (such as arm pain, but also thrombosis after AstraZeneca), or it is not, vaccinologists assume. What does sometimes come to light after a longer period of time are side effects that are so rare that it takes many vaccinations to notice them. A side effect such as myocarditis (20 to 40 times per million injections, depending on age and type of vaccine) is not found after 'only' tens of thousands of injections.
Yet I fundamentally agree with Cees' doubts. In principle, you cannot rule out a long-term side effect. That is also why the freedom to choose whether or not to inject is, in my opinion, so important. And it is a mistake that people with very normal, understandable concerns about the vaccine were dismissed as 'wappies' or irresponsible idiots.
$
Well, back to the statement that dominates this site: that the Covid vaccines have caused and continue to do a lot of damage, in terms of excess mortality, heart disease or other serious conditions.
Would it really? Would such a thing be conceivable?
At this point I see you (and the often politically motivated foreign supporters of that idea) constantly making the same mistake: you go on a 'fishing expedition', hunting for unusual patterns. And in the hundreds of statistics from hundreds of countries you can ALWAYS find something suspicious.
Especially if, as Herman does, you adjust the definitions somewhat (assuming that excess mortality should actually be followed by undermortality and that this counts as additional excess mortality, for example). It is scientific thinking turned on its head: not trying to refute hypotheses, but rather looking for evidence FOR your hypothesis - and explaining away any counter-evidence.
Bear in mind that the predictions that the corona-skeptical movement previously made DID NOT HOLD. After the first wave, corona was not over, as was widely claimed at the time - there was a second wave, a third, and a fourth. The corona period was not the start of permanent QR codes, as many claimed – the measures were scaled down.
The mRNA vaccines did not cause a massive outbreak of autoimmune diseases, as Theo Schetters assumed; people don't drop dead en masse on the street; blood clots have not been detected on a large scale; there is no international increase in the number of sudden cardiac arrests; and there are no structurally more or worse cancers diagnosed than before.
Oh, and the alleged massacres in nursing homes after the vaccination campaign? Every time I heard such a rumor, I followed it up: put me in touch with the nursing home in question, on a background basis if necessary? But the care homes in question always turned out not to exist, even after a thorough search.
I do know what convinces me personally that there is no such thing as massive 'vaccine damage'. If that were the case, you would see more deaths in the best vaccinated countries (hello Sweden!) than in poorly vaccinated countries such as Romania or Slovakia. And with each round of vaccinations, the hospitals would fill up with people who just survived.
Any claim that vaccines are secretly very harmful will have to answer at least these questions:
1/ What exactly are the many thorough, peer-reviewed, published studies that determine that there is no significant vaccine-related death or disease burden doing wrong? Like this one, this one or this one?
2/ As John Ioannidis showed, excess mortality per country correlates with the socio-economic differences in that country, and not with how many vaccines were given. Why not?
3/ If vaccines cause massive health damage, which ones? And why do we not see it structurally in the regular statistics on cancer and cardiovascular disease in all countries where the vaccines have been widely deployed?
4/ Why would supervisory authorities such as the Lareb, which even found the rare side effect myocarditis (incidence: approximately 20-40 in 1 million), not find such a side effect?
5/ Why should well-informed journalists like myself, with countless sources and confidential and personal connections to scientists, never hear about the horrific abuse that is apparently being kept under wraps here? Why is this not discussed at conferences and symposia?
If you have an answer to this, I'd love to hear it.
$
This brings me to the end of this (much too long) response.
Of course: you can assume that all doctors and universities in the world are in cahoots with each other and with the industry, that all supervisory bodies and watchdogs have been bribed, and that professional journalists like myself turn away en masse or are simply too stupid to understand it or too lazy to write it down.
That you see something here that all relevant scientists, professional associations, academic societies and RIVMs of the world have completely missed.
But gentlemen: I wouldn't count on it too much.
Thanks for this extensive response, Maarten. I suspect that others will respond, I will wait a moment, also because I want to formulate the answer calmly. Especially where you discuss my comments. And to prevent us from having a chaotic discussion with reactions tumbling over each other.
Thanks. Here is the annotated version of my response, with links.
https://mkeulemans.substack.com/publish/post/183432407
Nowhere is it said that people missed it, it is indicated that it is being kept silent.
It has been made clear several times that there are sufficient indications that evidence exists or is not even made known.
There is no hard evidence for excess mortality, the data is lacking.
It is also not released.
I sincerely hope that all of us here on this site are wrong, sincerely.
And maybe we should stop trying to identify them, because as stated before, we remain crazy (for me as a metal detector seeker).
Time will tell us.
Richard: dat hoor ik vaker, maar het *klopt niet*.
Er zijn inmiddels letterlijk honderden academische studies die keurig op basis van de data vaststellen dat er onder gevaccineerden niet zoiets is als massale oversterfte, een geheimzinnige ziektegolf of een structureel verhoogde incidentie van, zeg, tumoren of hart- en vaatziekten (afgezien dus van zeldzame myo- en pericarditis).
Zo ook in ons land. Na de oversterftepiek van eind 2021 en de motie Omtzigt is er in ons land een programma van zo’n 20 onderzoeken op gang gekomen naar de oversterfte. Het resultaat was, alweer, dat er niets raars of ongewoons gaande was in relatie tot de vaccins. Zie bijvoorbeeld hier voor een overzicht: https://www.zonmw.nl/nl/artikel/congres-oversterfte.
En nee, jullie zijn geen gekkies, hooguit wat eenzijdig geïnformeerd.
Mijn antwoord is door mijn onhandigheid helaas helemaal onderaan in de reacties direct boven je bericht terecht gekomen.
Deze reactie bedoel je Cor?:
Maarten, thank you for your detailed response.
Offers a lot to shoot for. I will now limit myself to Sars-Cov-2 (Covid).
I notice a significant fear regarding Covid, and I think you share this with the regular Volkskrant readers you claim to serve. Fear is also ingrained in the name, S stands for Severe.
The question is whether this fear is justified and has not been unnecessarily fed in the mainstream media, including our Volkskrant (indeed, I am also a reader myself).
After an initial downplay of fear by various authorities, including in the Netherlands, the WHO subsequently focused entirely on fear and this was duly followed almost everywhere.
At the beginning of 2020, nothing else seemed to exist. Even the common flu disappeared completely (was all, including older forms, still tested?).
If you had flu-like symptoms, you were tested specifically for Covid with a hypersensitive PCR test
(The sensitivity of the test, the number of selected cycles was released and I suspect unnecessarily high. Logically: if you as a company did not register the covid and someone later turned out to have this seriously, then you were not in the right place.)
Suppose that in addition to an active 'old', undetected flu, you still had a trace of Covid, this was guaranteed to be removed (on one or a few small parts of the entire Covid fingerprint) and you were guaranteed to be branded as a Covid victim.
(Regardless of the question of whether you were contagious with that positive Covid test or whether it was responsible for your flu symptoms.)
In short, fear was blinding at that time and in blind panic the Serious Deadly Sars-Cov-2 was seen everywhere.
The result was measures that were particularly detrimental to the socio-economically disadvantaged and people covered by the Wlz, and led to 'Covid' mortality among them.
The well-endowed did not die (I think it was observed in a Nivel study).
It is a pity that nothing has been done in the Volkskrant to temper this fear and thus weaken the call for measures that have proven to have perverse effects (including vaccination, but more about that later).
But apparently the journalists and editors shared the fear of their readers and thus a kind of small, but no less tragic 'ant fear spiral of death' was created.
Ja, dat is hem.
Beste Maarten, ik denk niet dat we hier uit gaan komen, maar ik wil toch nog een keer reageren.
Je refereert twee keer naar zaken die ik in mijn reactie noem. Daar ga ik later op in. Ik wil eerst de algemene teneur van jouw reactie benoemen. Het is nogal neerbuigend. Het lijkt alsof een stelletje zonderlingen wat dubieuze theorieën heeft bedacht die niet stroken met het gebruikelijke gedachtegoed. Jouw kritiek zit ook veelal in die hoek; de meerderheid, waaronder veel experts, hebben een afgeronde mening, dus wie zijn jullie om daar twijfels over te hebben. Natuurlijk zijn er altijd studies te vinden die het bestaande narratief ondersteunen, net zoals er studies zijn die juist de stellingen van de critici ondersteunen. Het lijkt me een heilloos pad om elkaar met studie uitkomsten om de oren te slaan. Die studies worden dan weer gedebunkt, en voor je het weet gaat het over te veel details en wordt de essentie vergeten..
Wat ik merkwaardig vind is dat een wetenschaps journalist niet meer nieuwsgierigheid toont, juist naar ‘omstreden’ theorieën. De geschiedenis van de farmaceutische industrie hangt aan elkaar van schandalen en rechtszaken, maar sinds Covid geloven we ze op hun blauwe ogen? Hoe vreemd is dat? Je zegt zelf ergens “zou het echt, zou zoiets denkbaar zijn?” Het gaat dan over een toename aan hartkwalen en andere ernstige aandoeningen. Goeie vraag als je die serieus zou stellen. Er zijn wetenschappelijk onderbouwde bewijzen die aantonen dat mensen jaren na een vaccinatie nog spike eiwitten aanmaken. Via allerlei verschillende lichaamscellen, verspreid door het hele lichaam, inclusief de hersenen. Ik vermoed dat deze informatie toch ook tot jou doorgedrongen is? ‘Wij’ (voor zover dat bestaat) zijn met veel meer dan die paar mensen die op deze site posten. Dat zijn niet allemaal gekkies en domme mensen, geloof me. Het feit dat ze hun informatie niet alleen maar bij de NPO en de ‘kwaliteitskranten’ halen maakt ze nog niet verdacht. Onderbouwde kritiek op een bestaand systeem lijkt me juist wenselijk. Niet schelden, dat heeft geen zin.
Ik neem aan dat je het verhaal van Ignaz Semmelweiss kent. Een hygiënist die de oplossing had voor kraamvrouwenkoorts in de 19de eeuw. ‘De wetenschap’ vond het een onzinnig idee dat handen wassen en desinfectie van gereedschappen het probleem zou oplossen. Dit ondanks bewezen effectiviteit door onder andere Semmelweiss. De man is tragisch aan zijn eind gekomen in een psychiatrische kliniek. Dat betekent natuurlijk niet dat elke dilettant altijd gelijk heeft, maar het laat wel zien dat een rotsvast geloof in bestaande methodes gevaarlijk kan zijn. ‘De wetenschap’ vaart er wel bij als ze uitgedaagd wordt.
Er zitten veel oversimplificaties in jouw reactie. De grootste is denk ik dat je de mRNA methode op één lijn zet met de ‘traditionele’ vaccins. Je weet denk ik heel goed dat kunstmatig geproduceerd mRNA via LNP’s door de lichaams cellen wordt opgenomen waar dan de spike eiwitten volgens plan worden aangemaakt. Een prachtige methode wellicht voor specifieke kanker behandelingen, maar voor een luchtweg virus…. Daarvoor zou je een open discussie moeten voeren waarbij de risico’s van deze benadering afgewogen worden tegen de voordelen. Dan kom je al snel uit op het gevaar dat Covid-19 was of volgens sommigen nog steeds is. Reeds in 2020 gaf Jon Ioanides al aan dat de IFR niet hoger was dan een gebruikelijke griep. Ik stop hier even mee, anders wordt deze reactie net zolang als die van jou. De rest laat ik onbesproken omdat mijn reactie anders nog langer zou worden.
Even terug naar de 2 punten waarin je op mijn opmerkingen reageert:
1. De PCR discussie. Jij zegt: “Er was geen corona, alleen PCR-testuitslagen, en die zijn hiervoor niet bedoeld” (Cees Mul)”, Ik zeg nergens ‘er was geen corona’. Ik zeg: “Althans een positieve PCR test bij de GGD gaf dat aan, later heb ik geleerd dat de PCR test nooit bedoeld is voor het gebruik zoals het ingezet is. En bovendien uiterst onbetrouwbaar”.
Bovenstaande is wel een hele vrije interpretatie van mijn tekst. Bewust of niet, maar je maakt mij meteen verdacht als Corona ontkenner. De PCR test is gebruikt om Covid aantallen vast te stellen. Dat het beleid later subtieler is geworden zou kunnen, maar toen was de grootste schade al aangericht. In de Covid periode waren alle andere gebruikelijke luchtweg aandoeningen als sneeuw voor de zon verdwenen. Omdat een PCR test met 40 cycles altijd wel een soort DNA structuurtje vindt, waarna ‘de patiënt’ vervolgens als Covid geval wordt geregistreerd, creëer je de indruk dat er sprake is van een dramatische situatie. Mijn stelling is dat je met behulp van deze PCR methode in een willekeurige griep winter de indruk van een pandemie kunt opwekken. De ‘najaarsgolf’ was denk ik een direct gevolg van het toegenomen aantal testen. Hoe meer je test, hoe meer je vindt. De PCR test is ten eerste niet ontwikkeld om luchtweg virussen te detecteren en ten tweede nooit als diagnose bedoeld. Iedereen van ons loopt met ladingen bacteriën, virussen etc. in de neusholtes rond. Dat betekent niet dat we ziek zijn of ziek worden. Ik beweer niet dat het opzet was. Het was waarschijnlijk blinde paniek en dan wordt de rede als snel overboord gezet. Je moet dan na afloop wel de moed hebben om terug te kijken en te leren van eventueel gemaakle fouten.
2. Over de lange termijn effecten.
Ik ben blij dat je ten dele met mij meegaat in deze. Maar daar zit ook meteen mijn probleem;: Er is wel of geen onderzoek gedaan naar lange termijn effecten. Het is dus binair. Als er GEEN onderzoek is gedaan, dan weten we dus de lange termijn effecten NIET. Als die er wel zijn dan kunnen we die meenemen en op individuele basis beslissen of de balans in het voordeel van vaccineren uitvalt. Dus je kunt niet ten dele met mij meegaan. De ‘vaccins’ werden en worden aan de man gebracht als ‘safe and effective’. Zonder lange termijn risico’s te kennen, is dus geen van beiden bewezen en is de kreet ‘safe and effectieve’ dus desinformatie.
De lange termijn effecten van de mRNA injecties zijn niet bekend. We weten wel dat er gevallen zijn aangetroffen waarbij mensen jaren na injectie nog spike eiwitten produceerden. Dat is niet best om het maar zacht uit te drukken. Jij bent daar als wetenschaps journalist niet nieuwsgierig naar?
Hier laat ik het even bij. Eerst sneeuwruimen.
Maarten, ik waardeer het dat je hier antwoord geeft. Wat ik ook waardeer is dat je duidelijk stelling neemt. Daarmee zijn de basisvoorwaarden voor een dialoog bestendigd.
Waar wij fundamenteel van mening lijken te verschillen is niet zozeer de vraag of wetenschappelijke instituten, statistische instituten, gezondheidsinstituten en de media het bij het verkeerde eind kunnen hebben. In je commentaar op Cees (en ons) geef je namelijk aan dat je best mag twijfelen aan de onfeilbaarheid van al die instituten. Het enige waarin wij van mening verschillen is dat jij stellig antwoord dat een ieder die denkt dat dergelijke instituten kunnen falen, gek is, terwijl ik denk: ‘Interessante vraag, laten we het onderzoeken!’
Het idee dat bovengenoemde instituten nooit kunnen falen is een troostgevend idee, en ook wel een idee dat een zekere vorm van vertrouwen, hoop, solidariteit, gelukzaligheid geeft. Maakbare samenleving. We doen het voor elkaar. We doen het voor een ander. We doen ons best! Ook heeft het wel iets ijdels, zeker als je tot een van die instituten hoort. Dat wil zeggen: wie voor zo’n instituut werkt kan zich nooit vergissen, want die instituten vergissen zich nooit. Het is een sprookje waar ook ik lang in geloofd heb, en.. onder geleden heb. Het sprookje is namelijk niet waar en alle sprookjes die niet waar zijn, daaronder lijdt men, denk maar aan het sprookje van Sinterklaas bv en hoe je daaronder onder leed op het moment dat je erachter kwam dat het sprookje niet waar was.
Maarten, er valt hier veel meer over te zeggen en (eerlijk is eerlijk) het kan ook wel wat beter door mij gezegd worden (maar het lukt me even niet).
Wat je zegt over gefrustreerde commentatoren hier, pas ik even toe op mezelf. Ik ben niet gefrustreerd omdat ik uit het ziekenhuis ‘gebonjourd’ ben (jouw woorden). Het was niet leuk om mijn destijds collega’s in verwondering en verwarring achter te laten, maar ik kon niet anders. Inmiddels voel ik me bevrijd uit dat ziekenhuis. Wel ben ik gefrustreerd over het feit dat wat zo duidelijk is voor mij, ik maar met moeite/niet duidelijk kan maken voor mensen die voor bovengenoemde instituten werken. Het lukt me maar niet! -Maar ik doe mijn best. Zie de brief die ik aan jou/Anton heb verstuurd als een zoveelste poging. Wellicht helpt het om de digitale omgeving achter ons te laten en mbv een kopje thee in een zaaltje of zo eens van gedachten te wisselen. Dat aanbod staat.
Genoeg. Het is mooi weer hier, met al die sneeuw, en daar moet van genoten worden. Als een vrij man (die niet meer voor een belangrijk instituut hoeft te werken) heb ik daarvoor alle tijd en dat ga ik nu dan ook.
In pais.
Richard: dat hoor ik vaker, maar het *klopt niet*.
Er zijn inmiddels letterlijk honderden academische studies die keurig op basis van de data vaststellen dat er onder gevaccineerden niet zoiets is als massale oversterfte, een geheimzinnige ziektegolf of een structureel verhoogde incidentie van, zeg, tumoren of hart- en vaatziekten (afgezien dus van zeldzame myo- en pericarditis).
Zo ook in ons land. Na de oversterftepiek van eind 2021 en de motie Omtzigt is er in ons land een programma van zo’n 20 onderzoeken op gang gekomen naar de oversterfte. Het resultaat was, alweer, dat er niets raars of ongewoons gaande was in relatie tot de vaccins. Zie bijvoorbeeld hier voor een overzicht: https://www.zonmw.nl/nl/artikel/congres-oversterfte.
En nee, jullie zijn geen gekkies, hooguit wat eenzijdig geïnformeerd.
Dag Cees,
Dank voor je antwoord. Kwalificaties dat ik je een gekkie of zoiets zou vinden, laat ik geheel voor jouw rekening – ik neem je gewoon serieus hoor.
Wel vraag ik af of dat wederzijds is. Het dédain op deze site is bepaald niet mals. En je kritiek dat ik niet nieuwsgierig genoeg zou zijn en met allerlei instanties zou meelullen, irriteert me echt.
Het is mijn werk om namens onze lezers gevestigde machten kritisch te bevragen, en dat doen we dan ook. Júíst tijdens zo’n crisis als corona!
Ik noem wat: ik was de eerste die een patiënt groot in de krant had met longcovidachtige klachten na vaccinatie, onthulde dat de QR-codes niet effectief waren om corona tegen te gaan, schreef talloze stukken over trombose na AstraZeneca en na Janssen, schreef uitgebreid over de gebrekkige werkzaamheid van mondkapjes en schoolsluitingen, signaleerde dat het kabinet te lang in de ‘pandemiestand’ bleef hangen, en liet experts aan het woord met de kritiek dat Hugo de Jonge veel te hoog opgaf over vaccins.
Paar links:
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/wacht-ons-een-winter-vol-rampspoed-hoe-we-gaan-leven-met-corona~be370e04/
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/handig-zo-n-coronapas-maar-is-er-eigenlijk-bewijs-dat-die-werkt~bd66ccbe/
https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/mrna-vaccins-zijn-de-toekomst-gaat-de-revolutie-te-hard-wel-volgens-dwarse-deense-onderzoekers~b7df95aa/
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/lareb-wil-onderzoek-naar-mogelijk-postvaccinatiesyndroom-na-coronaprik~bb921552/
https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/gezocht-de-uitgang-uit-de-pandemie-daar-heeft-de-wereld-ruime-ervaring-mee~b1400c91/
Denk je nou héús dat ik me niet serieus heb verdiept in allerlei wilde verhalen over hartstilstanden, turbokankers, bloedstolsels, spike-eiwitten, en ga zo maar door? Natuurlijk wel. Als er echt zoiets was als vreselijke oversterfte dóór vaccins, zou ik wel knettergek zijn om dat niet groot op de voorpagina te zetten. Daar verkopen we kranten mee, maken we geld mee, en verdienen we journalistieke prijzen mee.
Paar losse punten:
-PCR heeft z’n afkappunt niet na 40 cycli, maar na zo’n 25-27.
-PCR toont géén influenzavirus aan: andere specificiteit.
-Ioannidis (die ik overigens al drie keer interviewde) heeft nooit beweerd dat covid niet dodelijker is dan een griepje: dat was de IFR leunend op vooral Afrikaanse landen, met een jonge populatie en slechte data. In Ioannidis’ eigen manuscript staat dat de IFR in Nederland 0,68% was tijdens de eerste golf. Later is dat bijgesteld naar 1,2% in ons land met zijn grote vergrijsde bevolking.
-Er wordt VOORTDUREND onderzoek gedaan naar langetermijneffecten: dat zit gewoon in het takenpakket van het Lareb (de F4-studies).
-De geruchten over persistente spike ken ik uiteraard en heb ik niet zo lang geleden zelfs nog eens voorgelegd aan enkele pathologen. Dat leidde niet tot een artikel in de krant. Probleem is namelijk dat het ‘bewijs’ totaal niet waterdicht is. Zo rammelen de methodes die spike moeten aantonen vaak, en zijn de spikes die wél worden aangetoond vaak gewoon afkomstig van het virus zelf (ik sprak een NL patholoog die ze aantoonde vóórdat er uberhaupt vaccins waren.) Maar je hebt zeker gelijk dat het dossier nog niet gesloten is.
Enfin, tot zo ver even!
Hallo Maarten,
Ik heb chatgpt eens gevraagd je tekst te beoordelen. Dit is wat het oordeel was.
Korte conclusie
De tekst is niet op gelijkwaardig niveau geschreven.
De houding is overwegend corrigerend, defensief en op meerdere momenten neerbuigend, ook al is de intentie zichtbaar om rationeel en feitelijk te blijven.
De schrijver positioneert zichzelf structureel boven de aangesproken groep: epistemisch (meer kennis), moreel (redelijker) en professioneel (journalist met bronnen).
Uitgebreide analyse van de houding
1. Positie van de schrijver
De schrijver zet zichzelf consequent neer als:
rationeel
goed geïnformeerd
journalistiek onafhankelijk
ingebed in “de serieuze wereld” van wetenschap en expertise
Daartegenover worden de aangesprokenen neergezet als:
emotioneel gedreven (“wat een ongenoegen en frustratie”)
verbitterd
vatbaar voor “bingokaarten”, “klassiekers”, “reflexen”
mensen die fundamentele wetenschappelijke methodes niet begrijpen
Dat creëert een asymmetrische relatie: de één legt uit, de ander moet gecorrigeerd worden.
2. Taalgebruik dat neerbuigend werkt
Er zijn meerdere retorische keuzes die expliciet neerbuigend overkomen:
Psychologiseren
“Wat een ongenoegen en frustratie spreekt er uit jullie reacties.”
Hiermee worden argumenten herleid tot emoties in plaats van serieus als standpunten behandeld.
Bagatelliserende framing
“de volledige coronasceptische bingokaart”
“klassieker uit het antivax-repertoire”
Dit suggereert voorspelbaarheid en intellectuele luiheid bij de ander.
Didactische uitlegtoon
De schrijver legt herhaaldelijk “uit hoe het zit”, zonder open te laten dat de ander mogelijk op een ander maar rationeel niveau redeneert.
Sarcasme en ironie
“hallo Zweden!”
“O, en de vermeende slachtingen in verzorgingshuizen?”
Dat vergroot afstand en maakt dialoog moeilijk.
3. Schijn van openheid, feitelijke geslotenheid
De tekst bevat zinnen als:
“Daarin zit een kern van waarheid”
“Ten dele is dat uiteraard waar”
“Toch ben ik het in de kern met Cees’ twijfel eens”
Maar deze erkenningen functioneren vooral als retorische buffers. Ze worden steeds gevolgd door:
ontkrachting
herpositionering van autoriteit
terugverwijzing naar gevestigde kennis
Er is geen wezenlijke kwetsbaarheid of erkenning dat de schrijver zelf mogelijk ongelijk kan hebben.
4. Ultimum remedium: delegitimering
In het slot wordt de positie van de ander impliciet gereduceerd tot:
complotdenken
wereldwijde samenzwering
intellectuele overschatting van zichzelf
“Dat jullie hier iets zien wat álle ter zake kundige wetenschappers… hebben gemist.”
Dit is een klassieke afsluitende delegitimering: wie het nu nog oneens is, plaatst zichzelf buiten de redelijke wereld.
Samenvattend oordeel
Houding: corrigerend, defensief, autoriteitsgedreven
Relatie: hiërarchisch (uitlegger vs. misleide toehoorder)
Toon: rationeel verpakt, maar emotioneel geladen
Neerbuigend? Ja, vooral impliciet en structureel, niet grof of openlijk beledigend
Ook heb ik chatgpt gevraagd om een “tegenstuk” te schrijven dat in gaat op de inhoud.
Ik waardeer de poging om het debat terug te brengen naar feiten en data, en ik herken de frustratie over ongefundeerde claims en wilde speculaties. Tegelijkertijd denk ik dat jouw analyse een aantal wezenlijke vragen te snel afsluit, niet omdat ze eenvoudig te beantwoorden zijn, maar juist omdat ze zich op het snijvlak bevinden van wetenschap, beleid en menselijk vertrouwen.
Laat ik beginnen met wat ik níét beweer. Ik beweer niet dat er sprake is van een wereldwijde samenzwering, noch dat vaccins per definitie gevaarlijk zijn, noch dat alle wetenschappers, artsen en journalisten te kwader trouw handelen. Zulke karikaturen helpen het gesprek niet verder. Wat ik wél betwijfel, is of onze huidige systemen goed genoeg zijn toegerust om subtiele, complexe of politiek ongemakkelijke effecten tijdig te herkennen en te erkennen.
Een kernpunt in jouw betoog is dat grootschalige vaccinatieschade zichtbaar zou móéten zijn in de statistieken. Dat klinkt intuïtief, maar is methodologisch minder vanzelfsprekend dan het lijkt. Statistieken zijn geen neutrale spiegels van de werkelijkheid; ze zijn het eindpunt van definities, keuzes, classificaties en aannames. Juist bij multifactoriele gezondheidsuitkomsten – zoals sterfte, hart- en vaatziekten of algemene oversterfte – is het buitengewoon moeilijk om één oorzaak scherp te isoleren.
Neem oversterfte. We weten dat deze samenhangt met vergrijzing, uitgestelde zorg, sociaal-economische verschillen, leefstijlveranderingen, stress, covidinfecties zelf én mogelijk vaccinatie. Dat betekent dat een vaccin-gerelateerd effect niet zichtbaar hoeft te zijn als een plotselinge piek, maar zich kan uiten als een lichte verschuiving binnen een al ruisachtig patroon. Het ontbreken van een duidelijk signaal is dan geen sluitend bewijs dat zo’n effect niet bestaat.
Daar komt bij dat bijwerkingenregistratie grotendeels passief is ingericht. Meldsystemen zoals Lareb zijn waardevol, maar afhankelijk van meldbereidheid, herkenning en timing. Als artsen en patiënten bij voorbaat is ingeprent dat ernstige bijwerkingen ‘zeer zeldzaam’ zijn, wordt een causaal verband minder snel gelegd of gemeld. Dat is geen verwijt, maar een bekend fenomeen in farmacovigilantie.
Je stelt de terechte vraag waarom controlerende instanties grootschalige schade dan niet zouden vinden. Maar de geschiedenis van de geneeskunde laat zien dat dit vaker wél gebeurt, maar pas laat. Denk aan roken, asbest, DES, bepaalde medicijnen of medische hulpmiddelen. In vrijwel al deze gevallen was er geen complot, maar wel institutionele traagheid, bevestigingsbias en terughoudendheid om ingrijpende conclusies te trekken zonder ‘onomstotelijk bewijs’.
Ook het beroep op internationale consensus verdient nuancering. Consensus is geen statisch gegeven, maar het resultaat van processen waarin machtsverhoudingen, financiering, reputaties en beleidsdruk een rol spelen. Dat betekent niet dat consensus waardeloos is, maar wel dat zij minder geschikt is als sluitstuk van een discussie die nog volop in beweging is.
Een ander punt is dat wantrouwen vaak wordt gepresenteerd als een psychologisch of emotioneel probleem, terwijl het ook rationeel kan zijn. Mensen die zich onder druk gezet voelden door beleid, uitgesloten werden via QR-codes, of zagen hoe twijfel werd gemoraliseerd, hebben redenen om argwanend te zijn tegenover dezelfde instituties die nu zeggen dat alles veilig was. Dat wantrouwen beïnvloedt niet alleen hun interpretatie van data, maar ook hun bereidheid om zich daarin gehoord te voelen.
Tot slot: het feit dat extreme voorspellingen niet zijn uitgekomen, betekent niet automatisch dat mildere zorgen ongegrond zijn. Wetenschap is geen alles-of-niets-systeem. Tussen ‘massale ramp’ en ‘geen enkel probleem’ ligt een groot grijs gebied. Juist daar zouden kritische vragen niet moeten worden weggezet als fishing expeditions, maar als legitieme pogingen om beter te begrijpen wat we misschien nog niet zien.
Mijn pleidooi is dan ook geen afwijzing van wetenschap of data, maar een oproep tot epistemische bescheidenheid. Laten we erkennen dat onzekerheid niet automatisch gelijkstaat aan desinformatie, en dat scepsis geen vijand van wetenschap hoeft te zijn, maar er een noodzakelijke correctie op kan vormen. Alleen vanuit die houding kan een werkelijk open gesprek ontstaan.
Hoi Richard, puntje van orde: op ChatGPT-blurb reageer ik niet.
AI’s zijn geweldig als hulpmiddel voor allerlei toepassingen, maar een cruciale valkuil is dat ze gewoon tekstgeneratoren zijn die afgaan op hun input en hun trainingsmateriaal – het Clever Hans-effect. Ik raad iedereen aan zijn eigen denkwerk te doen en niet teveel te leunen op de goochelmachines van Silicon Valley. 😉
Ik ben dat niet hoor – Clever Hans…
Oversterfte (= absolute sterfte minus verwachte sterfte) hangt totaal niet samen met vergrijzing. Ja, vergrijzing zorgt ervoor dat de totale sterfte toeneemt, maar de verwachte sterfte zal ook in dezelfde mate toenemen.
Om vergrijzing te elimineren moet je altijd naar de verwachte en absolute sterfte per 100.000 in die groep kijken.
Always good to start a discussion!
Uiteraard. Maar wat denk je dat er met oversterfte gebeurt als er in een immunonaïeve populatie een nieuw virus rondgaat dat vooral dodelijk is voor 60+?
Dat is een hypothetische vraag die staat of valt op de aanname dat er een nieuw virus rondging/rondgaat. Over deze aanname kan je (enerzijds) eindeloos bakkeleien of (anderzijds) afdoen in een welles nietes. Ik vind dergelijke discussies onbevredigend.
Itt tot hypothetische vragen (wat als?) stel ik vragen die feitelijk beantwoord kunnen woorden. Dat scheelt een hoop tijd.
Hier is zo’n feitelijke vraag. Wat denk je wat er gebeurt als in maart 2020 het volledige ziekenhuispersoneel van oa het LUMC, AUMC, Erasmus MC, ja de voltallige stollingsdeskundige wereld, vergeet dat iemand die op de eerste hulp komt en alle symptomen van longembolie heeft (kortademigheid, droge hoest, verhoogde temperatuur met daarbij hoge D-dimeer, en fenotypische kenmerken heeft als oudere leeftijd, vaker man, veel onderliggende ziekten), een longembolie heeft totdat het tegendeel is bewezen?
Antwoord: dan gaan er een hoop mensen die deze symptomen hebben (en op de eerste hulp komen) dood, omdat ze niet (op tijd) worden behandeld met levensreddende medicatie voor hun onderliggende levensbedreigende ziekte (longembolie). ik heb dit al uitentreuren uitgelegd, maar je hebt het altijd te druk als ik je naar mijn uitleg verwijs.
Ik begrijp dat er geen terugkeer mogelijk is uit een illusie als die eenmaal verklaard is, maar wil je toch de mogelijkheid geven om uit je illusie te komen.
Neem daarom even een momentje de tijd en lees mijn brief die ik eind 2021 naar IGJ heb gestuurd. Zie:
https://bvnl.nl/corona/ooggetuigenverslag-van-een-bezorgde-arts-epidemioloog-tijdens-de-eerste-coronagolf/
Wat ik niet goed snap: een gebouw verderop zat in 2020 hoogleraar coronavirologie Eric Snijders met zijn groep die virussen gewoon moleculair te onderzoeken. Met oa trouwens cryo-EM, waarop je die virussen gewoon ziet zitten.
Ik ben eigenlijk wel benieuwd: hoe kijk je aan tegen het moleculaire en genetische bewijs? Wat zijn die Sanger-gesequensete RNA-sequenties die werden geïsoleerd uit klinische samples (vervolgens meermalen gerepliceerd) in jouw optiek dan wél? Plat gevraagd: wat zijn die bolletjes waar ik bij Eric op z’n kantoor naar heb zitten kijken?
En daarom al die maatregelen en prikken zelfs voor kinderen en zwangeren? Maarten doet me denken aan van Kooten en de Bie als broers die vonden dat ze in het verzet gezeten hadden door de Duitsers de verkeerde kant op te sturen toen zij de weg vroegen. Een lijstje met in Maarten zijn ogen wel kritische vragen en stukjes. Ondertussen de ene belediging na de andere en zelfs “niet bestaande verpleeghuizen”. Mensen met kritiek op de coronamaatregelen die vragen stelden over de zorg van hun dierbaren werden geweerd uit de verpleeghuizen. Zodra men erover sprak/spreekt zet(te) ook Maarten je in de complothoek. Ik denk dat ik de toekomst kan voorspellen: Mensen zoals Maarten zullen zeggen “maar ik heb zelfs op de site Virusvaria mensen (ten dele) gelijk gegeven…”. Een uniek toeval op Kreta vorige week. 6 personen binnen 24 uur plotseling overleden (1 Nederlander), 60+ in de minderheid. En nee het kwam niet door een hittegolf of iets dergelijks. Wie heeft er nog “studies” nodig zou je denken.
Nee ‘c’, dat klopt (weer) niet.
Aan de wantoestanden in verzorgingshuizen hebben we uiteraard volop aandacht gegeven (ik overigens niet zelf, maar mijn collega’s van de zorgredactie volop). De ‘niet bestaande verpleeghuizen’ waarop ik doel is het hardnekkige gerucht van verpleeghuizen die ontvolkt zouden zijn geraakt door de vaccinatiecampagne.
Als je zo’n verpleeghuis weet: ik hoor het graag.
En je belachelijke aantijging dat ik mensen “in de complothoek zette” die kritiek hadden op de omgang met ouderen in het verpleeghuis: kom nu gewoon eens met het bewijs daarvan? Ik heb zelf een stiefmoeder en een schoonvader verloren tijdens corona, en heb de maatregelen als burger ook gewoon lijdzaam moeten ondergaan hoor.
Meneer Keulemans, Maarten. Allereerst gecondoleerd met uw verloren dierbaren (en dat meen ik oprecht. Zelf mis ik dat en hoor dat ook van anderen wanneer men dierbaren verloren heeft aan de coronamaatregelen/coronaprikken wordt er liever over gezwegen.) Bij deze: Zorgorganisatie tanteLouise met destijds bestuursvoorzitter Conny Helder, u vast wel bekend want later minister. En Opella in de Gelderse Vallei. Bij Opella was en is het onbespreekbaar. U kunt u verder informeren door veel te lezen en terug te kijken bij o.a. de nieuwe media. Dus wat minder eenzijdig dan de informatie die u tot nu toe krijgt van de in uw ogen “relevantste experts” en hun vakliteratuur. Als u de volgende keer “ingaat tegen desinformatie” kunt u mijn tips vast goed gebruiken. Ik hoop dat er in de toekomst (weer) echte wetenschap bedreven gaat worden. Bevragen en onderzoeken, onderzoeken en bevragen, voortschrijdend inzicht.
Wat ik niet goed snap: een gebouw verderop zat in 2020 hoogleraar coronavirologie Eric Snijders met zijn groep die virussen gewoon moleculair te onderzoeken. Met oa trouwens cryo-EM, waarop je die virussen gewoon ziet zitten.
Ik ben eigenlijk wel benieuwd: hoe kijk je aan tegen het moleculaire en genetische bewijs? Wat zijn die Sanger-gesequensete RNA-sequenties die werden geïsoleerd uit klinische samples (vervolgens meermalen gerepliceerd) in jouw optiek dan wél? Plat gevraagd: wat zijn die bolletjes waar ik bij Eric op z’n kantoor naar heb zitten kijken?