A study with conclusions that are not supported by the underlying data is nevertheless due to the Peer Review and is published in New England Journal of Medicine. That should not be possible. If fundamental criticism subsequently comes, the article is still not withdrawn. I described it earlier1Legacy Science ™ and Pro-Vax Fraud: a horror example.
Jona Walk haalde dat artikel aan in een lezing. Daarvan werd een foto verspreid en uiteraard was dat weer aanleiding tot ophef, zeker omdat rechtsonder op de dia mijn naam staat en 'virusvaria'.
The consternation on X was large (with a few). Wappie Walk quotes Wappie site Virusvaria was the tenor and hahaha - Anton uit Tirol etc. etc. Zuigende tweets, provocaties, valse beschuldigingen, niets gaat sommigen te ver. Het viel qua hoeveelheid mee, maar het gif dat erachter zit... Zij hebben mijn medeleven. Er is nog veel werk te verzetten.
Below the actual timeline so far. If you are not allowed to question very big question marks, I really don't know anymore.
Timeline V-Safe controversy (simplified)
2020–2021: Setup and rollout V-Safe
- Dec 2020: CDC launches it v-safe monitoring system To follow COVID-19Gaccins in real time via smartphone feedback.
- The system collects self -reported symptoms, pregnancies, pregnancy outcomes, etc.
June 2021: NEJM publication Shimabukuro et al.
- Study reports that there No increased risk of miscarriage Is with COVID vaccination during pregnancy. (June: two months after introduction of vaccines at 30/40 people, that was in US mid-April.)
- The main author is Dr. Tom shinoubtes, also Deputy director of the Immunization Safety Office of the CDC (CDC = American RIVM, falls under the HHS = the US Department of Health.)
- Criticism follows from several corners about methodology and premature conclusions.
- The percentage of miscarriages (12.6%) appears to be based on one Wrong composite denominator.
September 2021: Erratum published
- NEJM acknowledges that there were insufficient data to make a conclusive statement about miscarriages in early vaccination.
- The original conclusion remains formal. No retraction.
2021–2022: V-Safe data not public
- CDC refuses requests to release the entire data set.
- Refers to privacy, security and risk of "incorrect interpretation".
- Public worries are increasing: how can policy -making is transparent if the raw data remain secret?
2022–2023: Legal by Ican
- The Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) organization delves the CDC to court.
- CDC loses, and must release part of the V-SAFE data (144 million entries).
- After release The data is not usable for the intended goal: The data is (just like WOO supplies in the Netherlands) aggregated, cut, and without relevant time series, dates or demographic coupling.
2023–2025: No complete transparency
- To date is the full V-Safe data set, including pregnancy results, not released.
- Follow -up studies use internal data, without public replication.
- Independent analysis remains impossible.
2025: suspicion that documents have been removed
- Senator Ron Johnson demands internal e-mails from Shimabukuro and other CDC/HHS officials2Senator Johnson calls on DOJ, FBI, HHS, OIG to investigate alleged mishandling of HHS official records.
- HHS reports that some e-mails "are missing" or "may have been deleted".
- Although there is no direct evidence that these emails related to the NEJM study, the combination of person, timing and sensitivity Questions about transparency.
Current status (June 2025)
- V-Safe still remains not fully accessible For independent analysis.
- From NEJM study has not been withdrawn, despite recognized methodological errors.
- Trust in vaccine security monitoring during pregnancy is affected, but never recovered publicly.
Comments
In de tijdlijn hierboven hebben we gezien dat de onderliggende data niet worden vrijgegeven. Alweer niet. Naar wetenschappelijke normen is dat een schuldbekentenis. In de wetenschap zelf beseffen ze dat nog niet want iedereen is daar integer en met de beste bedoelingen bezig... Maar het is nu dermate opportuun en veelvoorkomend dat die gevolgtrekking maar eens moet worden gemaakt. Het vloeit simpelweg voort uit de richtlijnen voor wetenschappelijke integriteit. Waar die doelbewust wetens en willens worden geschonden, daar moeten verwijtbare wandaden te vinden zijn. De betrokkenen zijn medeplichtig aan wat er fout is gegaan. Erg jammer dat het zover moet komen.
I am asked on X what Jonah Walk illustrated with this slide (as if I know that). And what my position is (as if that matters a lot). Read the article in question, I would say.
But I still watched it again. And fall back in a rabbit hole.
In three months they wanted to demonstrate the safety of vaccination for pregnant women. But a pregnancy lasts 9 months, three trimesters of three months. A reassuring message had to come quickly after all the alarming messages about mrna in the ovaries, menstrual cycles disturbed and so on. And it had to be ready before the disease were to be exhausted whether mutations would catch up with the vaccines.
They solved that by following three groups of pregnant women: women who are punctured in their 1st trimester, women who are punctured in their second trimester and thus also for the third trimester. If you follow it all for a few months, then you have the entire period?
This setup can hardly go well. A few examples, without falling into statistical weight.
Het begint er al mee dat alleen de vrouwen die, toen er werd geprikt, in hun derde termijn waren, het tot een normale bevalling konden brengen binnen het gestelde tijdsframe. Dat moet namelijk binnen drie maanden na de prik en eerder dan geprikt (en zwanger) kom je het onderzoek niet in. Belangrijker is dat die derdetermijn-vrouwen de eerste twee termijnen geen miskraam hebben gehad. Dat betekent dus dat die in de analyse ook geen kans krijgen toebedeeld om daar een miskraam te krijgen. Wauw: de vaccins werken top zeg! Je moet er dus héél goed over nadenken hoe je dat terugcorrigeert. Temeer daar zo'n 50% van alle miskramen in de eerste termijn valt.
Another example: something similar happens within the trimesters. Women who were punctured during the first trimester will also be punctured in the middle of their trimester on average. That means that within the research they actually only run half a trimester risk on a miscarriage. That is automatically the second half. While the greatest risk is at the start of the trimester: twice as much as at the end of the trimester.
Zo'n studie staat of valt met de verantwoording van hoe dat allemaal is teruggerekend. Het staat er niet in. Terwijl het een bekende valkuil is3Immortal Time Bias: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/12/7/1343.
An example, easy to understand: we take the pregnant women who were vaccinated in their first trimester. From this group we look at Ho many women before the end of the period of pregnancy (early). That then results in say 10.6% miscarriages.
Nu lijkt 10,6% in lijn met de normale (achtergrond)incidentie van miskramen in het eerste trimester (die ook enorme en leeftijdsafhankelijke onzekerheidsmarges kent). 10,6% is zelfs laag te noemen. Maar niet iedereen heeft een heel trimester gevaccineerd volgemaakt, want ze zijn allemaal 'ergens in het eerste trimester' gevaccineerd. Er is dus minder gevaccineerde tijd doorgebracht in het eerste trimester, niet de volle drie maanden. Sommigen zullen nagenoeg het hele trimester gevaccineerd hebben doorgemaakt, anderen misschien maar 1 dag. Het ligt voor de hand om uit te gaan van een scenario waarin ze gemiddeld de helft van de tijd gevaccineerd hebben doorgebracht.
That scenario would mean a doubling of the miscarriage percentage: 21.2%. Then it will be a red flag, if it is for all ages. But without raw data it will continue to speculate. And no action is taken on speculations. That could be at the expense of the vaccination willingness.
Als je dan ook meeneemt dat van alle deelnemende vrouwen 84% in het derde trimester werd gevaccineerd... Probeer er dan nog maar eens soep van te maken.
How does the study ultimately calculate the miscarriage percentage?
That is completely beautiful. In Table 4 is reported:
- 104 miscarriages ("spontaneous abortions")
- 827 completed pregnancies known at the time of analysis
→ of these 827 are 104 miscarriage and the rest (723) born alive, stillborn (die dus niet worden meegenomen in deze veiligheidsstudie - het was er ook maar 1), enz.
From that they calculate the percentage:
104 / 827 = 12,6% Spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)
The authors note that this is in line with what you normal Expected (often 10–26% in the literature, depending on the age category).
De bevallingen zijn uitsluitend van vrouwen die pas in het derde trimester zijn gevaccineerd. Het effect van de prik op de foetale ontwikkeling doet hierin dus gewoon niet mee. De miskramen komen uit alle drie de trimesters - zij het steeds uit de tweede helft daarvan. De eerste trimester vrouwen die nog zwanger waren bij het beëindigen van het onderzoek kunnen later ook nog miskramen hebben gehad. Ook die zijn niet meegerekend in de studie. (Toen de onderzoekers hierop werden gewezen, kwam enige tijd later het antwoord dat ze die vrouwen nog hadden nagebeld en het klopte wel. Er was geen reden om de conclusies te herzien.)
Dit is een mix van survivor bias, left truncating, right truncating, immortal time bias en healthy vaccinee effect - daar is niet meer uit te komen. Terugtrekking lijkt de enige optie maar dat gebeurt niet. Want vaccinatiebereidheid.
Eventually the controversy gets stuck because people are calculating from different biases with incomplete, actually insufficient data and then it is about errors in that figure. It is actually an amateurish mess. The average blues band is better organized (I say from my own experience).
I cannot escape the impression that if this study had suggested something negative about the vaccines, he would not have passed the Peer Review. So he would not have been placed anyway and if he was unfortunate anyway, he would have been pulled back immediately in the first protests. (An organization like RetractionWatch is happy to play an active role in this4About the active role of RW: https://virusvaria.nl/de-inquisitie-van-retractionwatch/ ).
Intussen zijn er nog steeds geen langdurige grootschalige onderzoeken gedaan -in elk geval niet afgerond) naar zwangerschappen van gevaccineerden danwel vaccinatie van zwangeren, en met langdurig bedoelen we niet 3 maanden maar minimaal vanaf de prik tot en met 1 jaar na de bevalling en indien mogelijk nog langer. Er is eigenlijk niets over dit onderwerp bekend. Deze groep was uitgesloten(!) van de trials door de fabrikanten. Er zijn nooit testen op zwangeren gedaan na introductie van dit nieuwe 'platform' dat genetisch manipulatieve injecties fabriceert. Maar ach, het mRNA bleef toch in de arm en verdween vanzelf weer heel snel, ook volgens wetenschapscoryfee Dijkgraaf die het altijd zo helder uitlegt op tv, dus niks aan het handje.
Fortunately, there are observational studies.
45% more miscarriages between 8 and 13 weeks (Israel)
The ink of the previous pararaaf was not yet dry or I saw research with Israeli data, carried out by Josh Guetzkow et al5Josh Guetzkow et al https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.06.18.25329352v1, including known names Tracy Beth Høeg,Joseph Fraiman and Retsef Levi, scientists who sometimes made an alarmist impression. (I think so, even though it was not always flawless.)
Het is nog een preprint en het zit degelijk in elkaar. De vaccins veroorzaken volgend deze studie meer miskramen. Ze zeggen dat we moeten denken aan zo'n "4% meer." Maar hij noemde als achtergrondgetal 9%. Dan is het dus bijna de helft meer. Met andere berekeningen kwamen ze op "8 per 100 meer." Dan zit je rond de 86% procent verhoging. Niet te verwarren met 86% van de zwangerschappen, waar kritische misrekeningen mee leken te schermen. John Campbell sprak met Guetzkow.
The bullet summary of the study is below in the folding out.
I noticed: "Almost half of the loss took place after week 25 - so late verliezen, waaronder doodgeboortes."
Mark on:
- That we saw earlier that half of the miscarriages in it first trimester fall. So much less in the second half. https://www.famme.nl/kans-op-een-miskraam-per-week-overzicht/
- Death births are not included in the CDC study, where they only look at miscarriages.
Correct summary by Chatgpt (after a total bullshit summary with positive results, watch out with AI!)
📄 title
Observed-to-Expected Fetal Losses Following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination in Early Pregnancy
Josh Guetzkow et al., Israel, Maccabi Healthcare Services, MIT Sloan, UCSF, medRxiv 2025.06.18
🧪 Purpose of the research
Determining whether MRNA COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy, especially in weeks 8–13, leads to a higher than expected number of pregnancy losses (including miscarriages, therapeutic abortions and deadborns).
📊 design and method
- Population: 226,395 pregnancies in Israel, 2016-2022.
- Data: Electronic patient file Maccabi Health Services.
- Analyse: Observed-to-expected (O/E) Analysis with historical reference cohorts (2016-2018).
- Comparison: Women vaccinated with Pfizer (dose 1 or 3) in week 8–13 or 14–27 vs. Expected loss percentages based on Individual risk profiles.
📈 Main findings
🔺 Increased losses in vaccination in weeks 8–13:
- Dose 1 (week 8–13):
+3.85 pregnancy losses per 100 pregnancies
(13 observed per 100 vs. 9 expected; 95% CI: 2.55–5.14) - Dose 3 (week 8–13):
+1.9 per 100 pregnancies
(95% CI: 0,39–3,42) - Almost half of the loss took place after week 25 - so late losses, including dead births.
🟢 No increased risk outside of weeks 8–13:
- Week 14–27 (Doses 1 & 3): lower than expected number of losses.
- Influenza vaccination (Week 8–27): considerably lower than expected number of losses → healthy vaccine bias.
⚠️ Analysis Van Bias (ITB, Survival Bias, Hve)
1. Immortal Time Bias
- No time-dependent exposure-based analysis
The study only compares absolute relationships of SAB (spontaneous abortion) under "included, completed pregnancies." This creates this Selection on survival to injection/registration and to complete pregnancy - classic immortal time bias.
2. Survivor Bias
- Minimized: Only women with fully monitored pregnancies from week 8.
- Vaccinations before week 8 impossible Due to possible selection bias.
➡️ Bias works towards underestimation of risk (early losses excluded).
3. HVE (Healthy Vaccinee Effect)
- Demonstrated: Influenza vaccination (and COVID-19 from week 14) led to lower than expected Loss-Typical HVE signal.
- ➤ For vaccination in week 8–13, however, loss → HvE does not explain that.
➡️ HvE can cover up the effect rather than reinforce.
🧠 Conclusion of the authors
“The results provide evidence for a substantially higher-than-expected number of eventual fetal losses associated with COVID-19 vaccination during gestational weeks 8–13.”
They emphasize:
- Need to prospective studies and Regulatory evaluation.
- Possible biological mechanisms (eg teratogenicity, thrombotic processes).
- Dosis-respons effect (More loss with 2 doses than with only booster).
30% fewer full -term pregnancies for vaccinates (Czech Republic)
In the Czech Republic they have their registers in order than with us. Manniche et al (w.o. Schmeling) have done an analysis there 6Manniche et al: Rates of successful conceptions according to COVID-19 vaccination status: Data from the Czech Republic In any case, which cuts wood in terms of observation: from 1.3 million pregnant women have been analyzed from the beginning of 2021 and the completion of the births, no corrections or interpretations, only raw data. The first months I kept outside the graph. The number of vaccinates is then so low that gigantic uncertainty margins arise. In the beginning, the births are also of women who were punctured at the last of their pregnancy so that is crooked anyway. After half a year there will be more line. The graph speaks for itself. Finally a graph in which the upper line is happier than the lower one. Higher is therefore more delivery per 1000 women.
From January 2022, between 30% and 35% fewer pregnancies with vaccinates are fairly constant than for unvaccinants. So those are the women (but also the men! Then nobody think of us!? MrNA in the testes, is that not doing?)
En natuurlijk krijgen we de gebruikelijke riedel dan weer: correlatie is geen causaliteit. Het kan toeval zijn, lifestyle is niet meegenomen, ethniciteit niet, leeftijd deels, leefpatronen niet! Allemaal waar maar 30% verschil poets je niet weg. En zeker als je het Healthy Vaccinee Effect meeneemt: je zou verwachten dat de gevaccineerden het dan beter doen! Het lijkt erop dat die gevaccineerden zich maar hun achter hun oren gaan krabben wat ze allemaal fout doen in hun lifestyle. Oh nee - ineens weet ik het: het was natuurlijk uitgestelde zorg!
Of beings interested
The reproduction affects our survival. If you find that melodramatic sound, you should let it penetrate well. We are now already below the average of 2.3 child per couple in our culture. That is the number with which a society maintains itself. So we die out, and then we cannot use reproduction (and fertility) problems.
En dan toch die injecties blijven pushen en zelfs opleggen - want anders...
It is not surprising that the cover -up cover is being screwed more and more firmly. As far as presidency is concerned, Bergkamp-Gate does not follow up, and that is completely in line with expectations. Bergkamp had not thought of that plan either. It undoubtedly fits in with the NATO directives to stay far away from everything that smells somewhat like pathogenic viruses and the corresponding research to protection against it. The room is not about that; NATO was actually established to influence public health or thus threaten to know exactly what they are doing, the room does want to debate Bergkamp-Gate so that they can get rid of it for good after a vote and can leave their wrong behavior behind. Or do they still not realize what happened? Or is the state interest all that matters?
Footnotes
- 1
- 2
- 3Immortal Time Bias: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/12/7/1343
- 4About the active role of RW: https://virusvaria.nl/de-inquisitie-van-retractionwatch/
- 5Josh Guetzkow et al https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.06.18.25329352v1
- 6
Fortunately we still have Ourworlddata
Great how you can bring some clarity through all those smokescreens.
Fortunately we also have fertility figures via OurworldData and they don't think they are lying.
After a revival in a few countries in the first Corona year (thanks to Lockdowns?), After vaccination, it plummets considerably compared to the Pre Corona for years.
The Czech Republic is doing remarkably bad. Israel also supplies in but shows remarkable as one of the few countries in terms of population still growth potential.
And remarkably only the little -pricked Bulgaria is doing well. Belgium also dives down.
See OurWorldInData
Again a case of
Observation: none
Conclusion: the vaccine is safe
This is a fallacy that falls under Carl Sagan’s Venusian Dinosaur Fallacy (see: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w_N_IYi2c0E&pp=ygUWRGlub3NhdXIgZmFsbGFjeSBzYWdhbg%3D%3D)
Or even worse.
Observation: the surface of the planet Venus is as hot as an oven
Conclusion: dinosaurs live on Venus
Fertility is of course slightly different than broken vs completed pregnancies. But New Zealand remains nicely stable and there has also been substantial vaccinated.
(I have corrected the link in your comment. See This explanation)
You can also use the "embed" share option on Owid:
Births in New Zealand even seem to be slightly opposed to the trend.
Population pyramid shows that just in these years there is also a peak in terms of fertile women.
The Maori who, I believe, also form a fifth of the population relatively more children than the rest of the population. Despite all kinds of promotion campaigns (would be more vulnerable to COVID?, Less VIT D production?), They also had considerably less (bit of Bulgarian figures) vaccinated.
(Thanks to sources via Chatgpt with question: are Maori women of fertile age less vaccinated for Covid than the rest of New Zealand population?).
This could partly be an explanation for the positive NZ figures.
Australia just seems to follow the trend (with a dip 2020) but not to bend negatively. Also requires further investigation.
I think I am important to look and compare as detailed as possible. A job and a lot harder than: they are just "safe and effective" she see, see the real -time data.
I am a supporter of simple and I believe I have discovered a trend.
If there is data somewhere supportive for the BS that is sold in the media well then it will come in cool chocolate letters for days on everything they can say it.
If that is not the case, they first come up with a list to color the data.
If that does not work because there are sharp spirits such as Maurice de Hond or Ronald Meester not to leave it very much, then the second attempt comes. With the end of the goal of making people believe that they did well. Because people are happy to be happy in any fairy tale.
Overigens is het jammer dat we dat experimentele gevaarlijk spul vaccins blijven noemen.
Realize that in the previous thread- in which I stated that doctors who cannot see that you can get VAXX thrombosis, and therefore all women used the pill+Gevaxx'd explained as: thrombosis of pill use (after which the pill is stopped by the doctor), making those women an increased risk of pregnancy there.
Ie, I ended that comment by saying that these women had a chance of getting pregnant. And it was tacitly assuming that this was a kind of ironic end well.
But not so. These women could get pregnant, but had already shown that they did not respond well to Vaxx. There is a good chance that they would have a miscarriage after pregnancy. All thanks to the doctor who cannot see that you can get Vaxx thrombosis.
The deeper I think about this, the more it becomes clear to me why this jet -black period is preferably forgotten by all who were responsible for administering experimental junk for a disease that is best defined as a flu+medical negligence.
Not that this has to be: a guilty person with backbone would acknowledge and learn from it.
Well, perhaps ...
But for now I see little backbone. A lot of guilt.
Any idea where that will lead?
Yes, I think until the next (Quote Max Planck)
"A new scientific truth usually does not get the upper hand because her opponents are convinced and admit that they were wrong, but rather because her opponents are gradually extinguished and there is a new generation that has been familiar with the truth from the start."
Given the large number of those involved (opponents) who are debting, all about at least 25 years old (LFT on which doctors first practice their profession, I estimate that it will be known in about 50 years and things will change!
In other words: patience is a good thing ...
Nice for the long term, but that is not that interesting at all.
Unfortunately..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s8kRb8z4Zs
Wie controleert haar?
Welke checks and Balances zijn er om te zorgen dat de beste deal tot ons komt?
Maak die files openbaar en zwets er niet omheen ik wil weten wat er in mijn naam wordt gedaan.
The current reporting, called "the news" I have been boring for a long time. This is dangerous for news tenders who want to keep the reader mesologized in the stories that they force the reader to silence the thoughts of the reader.
But it is: those stories in the newspaper, they are bored!
I have long left the Arena, in which the news of the day is presented daily as if it were a gladiator battle. What can I save the Gladiator "Rutte". What can I save the Gladiator "the climate". Yes, what can the Gladiator "The Out mortality debate" (as it is led in the newspapers) save!
As some of you know here, I have been a gladiator for a while. That yielded something, even if it was only for myself to experience what it is like to be seen by an audience as ... Gladiator.
Well, we know that again.
I also see the news from the past to place on my daily reality. That gives something new for myself. Sometimes I come across something that may be interesting for the public arena.
For example, I read in the biography of Slauerhoff, that as a 26 -year -old doctor he went for the first time (as a ship's doctor) to the Dutch East Indies. For this he had to be vaccinated (against what is not included). The biographer (Hazeu) reports the following:
The journey lasted 5 weeks ... with a sick ship doctor on board. The first days of the trip he had not yet had any big problems witnessing a letter to ... "everything so far, some fever of my vaccinations". But in the last week he had received a stomach bleed.
After this episode, Slauerhoff was struggling with his health for 12 years. He died at the age of 38, of a lung disease. It was said that the cause was TB (the only lung disease that could be "objectively" at the time through breeding). But are his symptoms fit in with that?
A more poetic diagnosis was that society had had Slauerhoff suffocated. Which writers did not die of suffocation in terms of society? -Spinoza, Keats, Perk, Van Ostaijen, Kafka, Slauerhoff, row of Namur that I stolen from an essay (over Kafka, from 1982) from Hermans. Hermans wrote below:
"The belief in spiritual causes for organic diseases tends to lose its persuasiveness as soon as the disease with chemical drugs can clearly be demonstrably cure"
Thirteen years later, Hermans died of suffocation for an organic disease ... who was not healed with chemical medicines.
And is it true that TB is healed using chemical medicines. You have to take an antibiotics cocktail for at least six months, says the RIVM (and then it is true). But even then the question is whether you are healed from TB (the condition is "stubborn"). What does help is if you know how to improve your immune system. It is not without reason that TB in the Netherlands is only endemic in people with immune disorders, which also continue under the name AIDS. If the immune disorder improves, the TB will disappear. To what extent antibiotics contributes to this has never been randomized and we do not know (although the RIVM knows, you can trust them on their white coats).
You can also be vaccinated against TB. There is a randomized study about this (since a few years) (on which I have participated), and it shows that:
BCG vaccination does not protect… against COVID-19, COVID-19 hospitalization, or clinically relevant RTIs. (=luchtwegziekte)
But that
The proportion of individuals hospitalized for cardiac arrhythmias after BCG was two-fold higher than reported after placebo
See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39515666/
Which brings me to the following:
Has Slauerhoff perhaps died of vaccination? The symptoms fit, knowing, for example, that the risk of coagulation disorders has been increased due to vaccination. Perhaps Slauerhoff had a pulmonary embolism, diagnosis that you could not yet establish objectively (according to the current standard) and on which Slauerhoff was never investigated (according to the biography).
Just some ideas ...
In addition. Slauerhoff was in his time ... The news facility was more than fed up and set up his own magazine (with Du Perron, Ter Braak, other literary greats).
Why don't we do something like that?
I conclude from the comments under the line that there are more people here who are the news spectacle and can make their own news. Why leave everything to Anton, Herman et al?
Isn't it time to invest a meeting in which the writers of this site (below and above the line) come together and publish something jointly what they find worthwhile?
Perhaps that, taking Rien's words, this is interesting for the short term ...
There are magazines and a newspaper (the other newspaper). Anton gives us commentators the space here. I fully understand the need and that is why I faithfully follow everyone who speaks out. About TB: in Hungary the population is vaccinated against TB and many people responded more violently to the mrnaprik. In America (I don't know if that was/is in all states) it became/will be recognized. A friend of ours almost lost his Hungarian wife and adult child (born in Hungary) after their first mrnaprik. This diagnosis already came during their hospitalization. Both work at a large pharmaceutical company then spoke warning. They allowed it. It should be seen in Hungary's figures but is the registration correct? He hardly believed us that we have completely different experiences. That randomness makes public pronouncement extra difficult. Why does AI give in fact and proven information as an answer after several questions? My grandchildren use AI as humor. All the crazy things they have to learn, for example, about the climate, but knowing better, laughs laughs. Handy to make up for their keys. I am grateful to everyone who cooperates to get the bottom stone above!
Thank you Anton knows.
Thankful that you and others can transform figures into a language readable for me!
Nice and interesting reflections. I hardly follow the news. Just like in the old days, from some distance. And with more skepticism than ever, of course.
I think a kind of fatal spiral has been created. What is brought into the (mainstream) media is often adapted to what the people want to hear. Cowboys against Indians, the villain against the hero. Smart scientists who save the world from (invisible) dangers. The readers enjoy it and do not have to think in shades of gray and nuances. So this is actually not news, but propaganda (Pieter Klok story). The readers unquestionably accept these stories and everyone who thinks differently must be a dangerous extremist. They are a danger to the stability of society. The media add a little extra and the vicious circle is born.
I think there is at least 1 main character who feels this good: Robert Kennedy Junior. He does adjust things, but not in the chainsaw way of Musk. He knows that he must first turn public opinion. Most still think that traditional "health care" is infallible and has the truth in lease. In reality, it is precisely this healthcare itself that is one of the problems. It may nevertheless be called that the country with the highest spending on health care also houses the most unhealthy population. Even if you change institutions, this encounters protests among the population because they still believe in the system. Kennedy is in danger because he tackles a huge industrial complex. Only by waking up the population can he win this battle, I think. It's just a thought, maybe nothing is right.
In the Netherlands it is not much different, but every trace of a kind of Kennedy is missing here. But perhaps a change can be observed. You have to be fairly blind to not see that Mr. Rutte actually had to have some good conversations with a soul squeezer in a relaxed white space, whether or not with a swamp tube. That war rhetoric of this mother's child is horrifying. The "left" -oriented parties (who also want to spend those 5%) wake up Zomaaar in the same camp as the Trump they hated. Comical. The connection is that people perhaps see the dubious role of NATO/EU, and therefore perhaps wake up slowly. Thanks to Rutte who is now over -playing his hand? Wishful Thinking?
Een aanvullend interview
https://youtu.be/1NUQGPqWyiM?si=QRli_k9cmXkrVrgc