Research Report – Part One: Not a Science but a Doctrine

Read the full article: Research Report, Part 1: No science, but doctrines

reading time: 6 Minutes

What is not mentioned in the OVV report

although Dutch Security Council Report Since last Wednesday, which relates only to Part 1 (until September 2020), I believe – after reading the text – that Parts 2 and 3 will not address the main problem of this crisis either.

Although they claim otherwise, members of the RIVM/Van Dissel and the World Trade Organization have done everything except ethology.

They started from old dogmas, learned little new research, did not act transparently and left no room for debate. The data was not used to obtain and share insights, but was primarily a tool to prove the chosen location.

The fact that Jaap van Diesel was at the center of this whole operation, wearing many of the double hats described in the report, reinforced the above. Not only because of the position he ended up in, but also because of poor government choices, the report says. He did not become an advisor to the government, which made a decision based on his advice (as given by the WTO Governing Council) and other advice. No, he became prime minister.

The opinion of the MTO was binding and at most marginal adjustments were made.

And if you look closely at the way the OMT operates and listen to OMT members in the media (and they often have been there), it was Van Dissel who made the decisions and his advice was mostly in writing. If necessary, they are modified or supplemented by the wishes of the ministry to which they already belong.

Van Diesel’s stubbornness

The fact that only one person ends up in this position is highly undesirable, as the OVV report sometimes describes almost verbatim. But there was also a trait in Van Dissel’s character that greatly exacerbated all of this: his stubbornness.

It’s definitely not a shame if you’re still looking at the first couple of months and you’ve been on some sort of autopilot. What you have learned in the past, combined with information from the World Health Organization, allows you to make choices that they currently, in good conscience, believe are the best options under the circumstances.

Then he gives answers to questions from members of parliament, who sometimes criticize or bring information from abroad (questions were asked several times, which are based on information taken from articles on this site).

Responses indicating that you are unaware of this new information or that you believe it does not fit the advice you have given.

As mentioned, this is still understandable and acceptable for the first couple of months.

But with more and more information available about things working differently than you thought, you’re at an important crossroads.

Do you accept new information and change your approach and call it “advanced intuition”? Or you choose to keep your old position. (And most likely invisible little steps to take a different direction)?

Unfortunately, Van Dissel has consistently chosen to stick to the old and ignore or deny the new.

This is partly due to the fact that, as mentioned, the data was not used for learning and information exchange, but to support the chosen policy.

This lethal combination is clearly reflected in the Wallinga models, with extremely dark scenarios and little chance of investigation. But they formed the basis for resolute interventions by the government on the advice of the operations management team itself.

I will not repeat here some old parts of our site, but I will give a summary, so that then people can quickly know that this was the real reality, that is, based on the analysis of international data and important studies conducted abroad. But because these analyzes and studies did not fit the chosen approach and interpretations offered, they declined to use this new, relevant information. Something a good world should do.

And the sad thing is that many scholars, who already know the opposite, did not come up with this, because they wanted to stick to the established path. and/or because people were afraid of the consequences of their situation.

Due to the fact that even the mainstream media did not do much with this new acquaintance, members of Van Dijel, Walinga and the WTO received very few important questions.

the summary

I will conclude with a statement of critical knowledge collected in January 2020 that was not or was not included in hindsight by Van Dissel/OMT. Don’t pretend to be perfect. I always add when this point became so obvious that it could have been included in the policy/approach.

• The virus mainly causes serious consequences for the elderly and then again especially if people have other ‘comorbidities’ (March/April 2020)
• The mortality rate for those infected is much lower than 0.5% and much lower than previously thought (April 2020)
• Spread of the virus mainly by air (April/May 2020)
• The spread of the virus is barely passing (April / May 2020)
• The spread of the virus abroad is almost non-existent (April / May 2020)
• Diffuse events are the main drivers of infection (May/June 2020)
• The virus lives for a long time indoors with very little ventilation and/or a very low humidity level (May/June 2020)
• Extent of symptoms a person has is related to the viral doses they take (May/June 2020)
• There are many existing drugs that can be used with positive effect in early treatment (April / June 2020)
• A high level of vitamin D protects against infections and diseases better than a lower level (Summer 2020)
• PCR tests, especially high-value CT scans, provide many positive results for people who can no longer infect others (Summer 2020)
• Previous infections provide good protection against new variants (Fall 2020). In Omikron is less by the way
• Close monitoring of oxygen saturation level from primary care is a good approach to get fewer patients in the hospital (Fall 2020)

This pattern continued until 2021, when vaccinations began:

• There were more negative effects of vaccination than initially thought. This is particularly true in the area of ​​blood clotting and heart disease (which were more common in young adults) (Spring 2021)
• The effect of vaccination to prevent infection diminishes rapidly. A person who resists contracting a serious illness stays longer (spring 2021) but is also limited
• For young people, the risk of the consequences of infection is that vaccination is not the right choice for them (Autumn 2021). This may be the case (particularly with Omikron) for older age groups.
• Previous infection protects better than vaccination (Spring 2021)
• With booster injections, protection can be increased again, but for a shorter period (Autumn 2021)
• Corona entry permit, where vaccinators do not need to be tested (ie with 3G and 2G), gives a false sense of security, because vaccinators can transmit infection to others (August/September 2021)

And in the past few months it’s taken a while to get to the RIVM form generators/models:

• Omicron is significantly less harmful
• Omicron does not lead to a significant increase in the number of patients in intensive care units
• Omikron patients stay in hospital for a shorter time on average
• Although the number of infections initially grows at an unprecedented exponential rate, it also peaks very quickly, followed by a rapid decline
• The rapid spread of Omikron also rapidly improves immunity among the population
• Procedures to reduce the number of omicron infections hardly or do not work. It is precisely because of this high degree of contagion that people come into contact with the virus in many places

Much of the above was recognized only late or not at all by Van Dissel/RIVM/OMT and thus the effect of the measures was – much less – than suggested, assuming they had any effect. They also regularly took unnecessary measures, and they had a much more negative effect than they produced.

Scholars’ calendar

I doubt this argument will end in Parts 2 and 3 of the OVV Report. Of course, people will talk about poorly regulated vaccinations the first time and the moment they start boosting.

While this is certainly the case, the reason also lies in the fact that people did not want to learn much, if not much, from new discoveries and experiences abroad.

It would be great if Dutch scientists, outside the OVV approach, could evaluate the above. They are also trying to determine how scientists, while knowing and thinking differently, can keep their mouths shut. How is it possible that those who opened at least deviated from their course.

Only then can we reduce the possibility of the same thing happening next time.

Never in my life have I heard so many misleading statements they asked me to be aware of.

Until that happens there, we have to keep doing it. continue to support us Accidental donation (small).