CommonSenseTV Get real!

Support the real news!

Our Facebook, Twitter and Telegram


Dear fellow citizen,  

What was unthinkable six months ago is now right in front of us: the Dutch constitutional state is dangling by a thread. Fundamental rights and democracy are on a slippery slope. Not because of the virus, but because of increasing government control and the disastrous role of the media. For 'our public health' we are increasingly forced into a straightjacket of rules. 

Astonishingly few people are aware of the content and far-reaching consequences of the forthcoming Emergency Act (or Temporary Act Measures Covid-19). A very drastic bill that will affect each of us directly. This has not happened since WWII. The term 'temporary' is misleading. Are we bringing in the Trojan horse with this? In this proposal, the 'one and a half meter society' is laid down by law (!) And an offense can be punished excessively. Our fundamental rights are unacceptably restricted in many other ways as well. Incidentally, worldwide we see an increasing concentration of power and a strong restriction of civil liberties. We experience these developments as very worrying. Vigilance is required.

The bill is currently being debated in the House of Representatives and can be put to the vote today (8 October). It appears that a majority in the chamber will support the proposal (with possible adjustment). Given the content, that would be astonishing.

As the media was largely failing, we felt compelled to inform you about the key points of the law and the concrete consequences. Because the Emergency Act and six months of corona policy are inextricably linked, both are discussed in the letter. See the attached open letter 'citizens to citizens'. We cordially invite you to read the letter and share its contents with as many others as possible.

Yours faithfully,
Citizens for Clarification


Numbers 1 to 27 represent the sources at the bottom of this article

A GRIMMY LEGAL PROPOSAL | our country in an appalling situation

Next Tuesday 13 and / or Wednesday 14 October, the present bill will be adopted or rejected in the Lower House. Presented as a 'temporary law', it replaces an illegal and stretched regime of emergency regulations. But isn't that imaginatively bringing in 'the Trojan horse'? It is then about the 'Emergency Act' or 'Emergency Act' or 'Corona Act'. The proposal exudes an atmosphere that we have not experienced since the Second World War.

Before we go deeper into this bill - later in this letter - we first formulate an important and central question that is always not asked, let alone answered, and reads:
Why do responsible authorities to this day fail to provide a factual and clear justification for the ongoing measures? Before declaring even one new government measure, administrators and politicians should feel called to answer the many questions that the population has. With the highest priority, they must now first account for policy choices made to the entire Dutch population.

With increasing astonishment we see that over the past six months an impressive 'corona construction' has been constructed - layer upon layer - on a very shaky foundation. An 'intelligent lockdown' with all kinds of measures to exorcise covid-19. A policy that, with all its far-reaching social (behavioral) rules and other drastic restrictions, has penetrated deep into society like a virus and has now left a considerable footprint.
Not because of the alleged virus, but because of the choices made. It resembles a train that is racing without a driver, that cannot be stopped and that is heading towards a very uncertain destination. Or are we all in a tunnel where sincere questions, unwanted or even not done? Are we now traveling through a landscape of monoculture? Is there groupthink, where there is no more room for another sound? With all the possible risks that entails? Did not the media largely fail to give this dissenting voice, face and stages?

Suppose we put fear and panic aside for a moment and soberly ask ourselves: which questions have never been asked (again)?

WHAT IS THE REAL DANGER | persistent misinformation everywhere

We naturally want to express our condolences to anyone who has lost a loved one or acquaintance. Corona has left deep marks in society, we are very much aware of this. In this letter we attempt to reduce the social tension that has arisen and to steer it in the right direction by resuming the conversation about the many questions that have arisen on the left and right. They ask for meaning to the current state of affairs. For example, if administrators say in public that we should not end up in chaos, we agree wholeheartedly. But it still applies that people must be able to share their concerns and insecurities. We advocate open access to all relevant data and find the mutual conversation just so valuable.

What is the real 'danger' to our public health? Every day we are treated to an overdose of panic images and the same recurring rhetoric on television, the newspaper and the many social media. In this way, information about the virus and virus approach is continuously stacked in our brain, without any fundamental substantiation. If it is repeated often enough, we are apparently willing to "believe" rather than question. As if we are heading on a path after a wrong turn.
For example, the facts have been left out of the picture for far too long, while it is precisely those down-to-earth people when we are in due time that have our attention. For the sake of public health, let's put the facts together under a magnifying glass.

Nowhere in the world do the figures show that we are dealing with a dangerous A virus. Then we would be dealing with a high risk of contamination and a fatal outcome for many. This is not and was not the case! In mid-September, Mr van Dissel expressed the suspicion on behalf of the OMT that there are already 1 million infections in the Netherlands. If it were a high-risk A virus (such as SARS, MERS or HIV), then 100.000 to 300.000 people in the Netherlands alone would have succumbed to it. In reality, there are about 6.400 deaths, a number that is comparable to the numbers of previous years during the flu season.

And one step further. It is completely unclear how many of these deaths can actually be attributed to corona or to any other clinical picture (or even a traffic accident). It is also unclear to what extent there were other underlying disorders and how this was registered. How is that possible? This diffuse approach does not only take place in the Netherlands, but also worldwide.
When it comes to figures and graphs, we see that almost all reporters in almost all media are not so careful with a careful distinction and checking specific data. Precisely because of this, a distorted and incorrect image is all too easily created by readers and viewers. For example, the RIVM reported deaths of the past year as new.1 In another example, 38 corona deaths were mentioned and that number had to be rectified shortly afterwards, as an 'administrative catch-up' and we arrived at a much lower number. 2 These data could still be traced. But this example does not stand alone and in the meantime the fear is good again! The daily hammering on IC beds, 'infections' and killing almost resembles war language, with reports from the front. There are still deaths to be mourned and as if a daily dose of agony is not enough, we are also besieged with the risk of dying without another, with a lonely funeral at the end. In which disease or condition have we experienced this before? While cardiovascular disease and cancer alone can cause so much more deaths?

The authorities are also guilty of uninterrupted tough war language about 'killing'
and 'infections' and thus create a great culture of fear. We are told that the numbers are mainly increasing because we do not obey the rules. And that's why we get more and stricter rules? If we do not listen, will we be punished by a lockdown instead of a careful explanation of exact figures and a self-evident justification for the policy pursued? When will this war coverage come to an end and will we proceed to clear information and reassuring words where possible? A member of the OMT indicated that we should not 'discuss' but should 'listen' better. How can ministers prescribe endless, rigid measures to us - citizens - and - almost like 'toddlers' - lecture us? Why this disrespectful 'parenting' mentality?

PRESS THE REGULATIONS | 'common sense' is compromised

Meanwhile, the same measures and the stress they cause cause damage to the natural immune system and many adverse psychosocial and economic consequences. It is extremely undermining to our health if we have to park our own 'common sense' as well as our own intuition about what is good for our body. Only because repeated reports of a 'new', 'dangerous', 'unpredictable' and even 'deadly' virus overwhelm everything. Why were we deprived of responsibility for a 'healthy' relationship with the virus and with each other?

Why has an investigation into our public health not been started with sincere attention throughout the Netherlands and have we ended up in a country of very much the same: 'occupational therapy' around all shapes of corona? Why did we actually end up - without demonstrable evidence about the operation and efficiency - in a ritual dance of: 'one-way arrows', online meetings, compulsory trolleys through the shop, washing hands, mouth masks and mudguards? How much do these instructions distract us from clear thinking about what is going on and what is good for our health? Have we ever done this on such a large scale with influenza before?

For many years, the IC has been overloaded with a flu or influenza, while such behavioral rules never existed before. The current corona figures are on the order of a severe flu. Besides, the influenza from two years ago was much more deadly.
How 'normal' we have come to think. Nota bene without providing us with clear arguments. And what prompted them to do this? Incidentally, an up-to-date overview from RIVM shows that things are not too bad with the crowds in hospitals. Currently, a total of 268 covid patients are in the ICU, spread over 325 Dutch hospitals. That in no way makes you think of a second wave.

It is really high time that the administrators give clear account of the policy pursued over the past 6 months. If they are unable to do so and do not provide scientific evidence, they cannot, as a last resort, impose our coercion and punishment. A form of thinking that might shake ministers out of tunnel vision.
There has been more than enough time for a thorough social evaluation. Ministers and parliamentarians should have asked questions in full public view. They should also have involved a 'broadly oriented' group of experts to gather information and find answers together. Then an Emergency Act, which is now in the Lower House as a proposal, was not necessary. Such a law will force us as citizens even deeper into a straitjacket and hand us over to arbitrariness.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT | The Netherlands in the grip of the WHO

Something that is not entirely clear to many is that since mid-March we have actually been governed on the basis of the Public Health Act (Wpg). This means that a special administrative system functions 'for our health', without our citizens appearing to have anything to say about it. This was kept silent in parliament. Why was the influence of this Wpg not questioned at the start? Why was it not openly considered whether a choice for the Exceptional Situations Coordination Act and the Extraordinary Powers Act would not have been more correct? With those arrangements, our democratic and constitutional rights would have been much more preserved. And could we not have opted openly for an approach with less control and less damage? Incidentally, the proposal for the Emergency Act will be inserted into the same Public Health Act.
On the basis of the experience that has already been gained with this law in the past six months, we are not in the least confident that the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport will not set aside even more freedoms and civil rights.

Is the Emergency Law the final blow to our democratic values ​​and our fundamental rights?
Where did the virus actually creep into? Is the Public Health Act our 'link' to the WHO? If the WHO declares a pandemic, the International Health Regulations and the Public Health Act will automatically apply. Does the Emergency Act thus serve the World Health Organization?

CROSS-BORDER BEHAVIOR | state penetrates deep into private life!

And there are more questions about the policy of the authorities. For example, how does the government come to deprive our elderly who need care of the choice whether they want to receive visitors? Fully aware that life is finite and a flu can pass? Could socializing with children or other loved ones have spared them a decline in dementia or other conditions? Why couldn't the elderly be quarantined with children or other loved ones? How dare policymakers penetrate so unheard of in the carefully and lovingly built relationships between the elderly and their (grand) children or friends? How have administrators been able to instill in (grand) children the idea that they pose a 'danger' when they touch or hug their parent, grandparent or friend? Why did they lie sick or die in isolation? Directors have no right to intervene in such relationships.

Why do 'we' protect the elderly in this way? Why do we protect the 'vulnerable' when the sick have their hospital treatment delayed? Whether a patient is too reluctant to enter the hospital as a result of the reporting? How is it possible that a client who is looking forward to a number of sessions of oxygen therapy has to discontinue the treatment on day one, because of intense breathlessness as a result of wearing a mouth mask for hours? Because not all companies and institutions make an exception for the mouth mask, even when that exception has been prescribed by a doctor or specialist.

A mother from The Hague fell off her chair when she read that she is not allowed to dress her own child after the swimming lesson, but that volunteers and employees are allowed to. In the municipality of The Hague, children in the swimming pool must from now on be dried by volunteers in the swimming pool.3 'The Hague allows strangers to dry and touch my child, but not me!' In a discussion with the swimming pool management it appeared that the management of the swimming pool did not agree with this approach, but had to follow the rules. The corona virus would be combated with these 'drying rules'. Where is the substantiation of this?

Why have our ministers not clearly informed us that their policy stems mainly from the mandatory guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO)? Why have they not taken responsibility for examining whether those guidelines are good for citizens? Perhaps they could freely admit that those guidelines did more harm than good? Guidelines that undermine the strength and self-wisdom of citizens, rules that ignore the right to say and participate.

DOCTORS WANT OPEN DEBATE | corona measures worse than the ailment

In the meantime, doctors have stood up in many European countries to do justice to the care of their patients, according to the oath they have taken. For example, a coalition of doctors and other health professionals in Belgium has issued an open letter calling for an immediate end to any 'emergency' policies implemented in response to the covid-19 virus.

In the Netherlands, 800 doctors and medical professionals wrote an urgent letter at the beginning of August.4 In three weeks, this initiative grew to more than 2000 doctors and medical professionals, including 6 professors. On October 4, the counter reached 2736 doctors and medical professionals. They request an 'open debate on the proportionality of the corona measures'. In this way, in the policy discussion, to reconsider the purpose that measures should serve: improving our public health. They also ask politicians to be independently and critically informed about the available evidence regarding the covid virus. "A remedy should under no circumstances be worse than the disease," say these doctors. Who can disagree with that?

After this request there was a deafening silence. On September 11th, Dutch doctors and lawyers gathered for a Medical and Ethical Emergency Deliberation; information is available.5 There are also similar initiatives by doctors in other countries in Europe, such as in Germany, France, Belgium, Spain, the United Kingdom and (outside Europe) Israel, Australia and the US. Worldwide, these doctors are linked in the International ACU2020.6 They write open letters with urgent advice and many questions. National governments excel in ignoring all that is suggested. Which boss do they serve? Who monitors who?

THE WHO | spider in an opaque web of interests

The WHO has increasingly become an opaque organization. The former image of a cooperation between countries is drastically outdated. In fact, the WHO is driven by the big money (from the Gates Foundation and the Chinese communist party, among others) and this organization operates as a global player in an opaque web of the pharmaceutical industry, many non-governmental organizations (NGOs), research and governments. It is the WHO that can declare a pandemic, forcing all 196 countries into a rule system. Through this long arm of the 'sanctuary state' we are actually increasingly part of a global superstate. That, for our so-called safety and our public health. Belgian doctors have now started a large-scale investigation into the World Health Organization (WHO) for falsifying the covid-19 pandemic.7 There are strong indications that this could take place in close collaboration with 'paid' media. It is valuable to follow the work of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich. As a lawyer with a long track record in dealing with major fraud cases, he now focuses on the Corona scandal worldwide.8

On what grounds has the government contributed to gross censorship guidelines, denying us access to strong and knowledgeable fellow human beings who have the courage to speak up and accept resignation or other consequences? How can the government pretend that WHO and a group of virologists and epidemiologists know more than all doctors worldwide, professionals who usually deal with clients on a daily basis?
How can health authorities worldwide pretend that citizens themselves are incapable of?
to make a 'healthy' assessment of what information they want to take in? As if citizens cannot develop their own considered vision of events and make their voices heard?

HARD FACTS ABOVE TABLE | important documents

In the midst of the fear culture of six months of 'crisis' and 'crisis approach', more and more citizens started looking for answers to many questions on the basis of 'common sense' and 'a gut feeling'. Questions that live in different layers of the (working) population, because it gradually became clear that something was completely wrong in the general policy of government (s), the press conferences, the persistent disproportionate measures, the constant contradictions within the measures, until even the remarkable proposals of the Emergency Act and the tarnished news gathering.

Meanwhile, no evidence was provided that the lockdown had the desired outcome. It is now clear that the coronavirus decreased in approximately the same way all over the world, and that the measures did not in any way influence the development of the virus. This evidence was provided by a study by the US National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), one of the top interdisciplinary research institutions in the US. This research agency came out at the end of August with a very revealing meta-study.9 This international study shows that the lockdown, the social distance and the wearing of mouth masks did not influence the course of Covid-19.
The scientists came to the conclusion that in all the countries studied, the corona mortality rate declined according to the same pattern, regardless of the measures chosen. A curfew, travel restrictions, quarantine measures, none of which influenced the course of the virus. What justification is there for (1) the measures, (2) the continuation of these measures and (3) the new reality that emerged with a chain reaction of consequences?
In countries without a lockdown, the virus decreased in a similar way as in countries with a lockdown. It also appeared that the policy pursued had no influence on the occupancy of the IC beds or the mortality rates. How 'intelligent' was our lockdown? What justifies the current run-up to a second lockdown? Why does the cabinet remain so chillingly silent when it comes to explaining its policy?

We followed the corona debates in the Chamber with immeasurable surprise.
Most of the debate was about salaries, increasing testing capacity, recommending or enforcing face masks, and levels of fines. We were pleased with those parliamentarians who introduced more fundamental topics. For us, all the attention should have been focused on two themes: 1) a fundamental debate about the emergency law; 2) a thorough discussion of whether the measures work and whether they are in proportion to the consequences. With an eye for psychosocial and economic consequences.

These questions should have been asked. It goes without saying, in a balanced debate in which people listen to each other openly and in which no agreements have been reached in advance. Even without hammering on the increasing numbers of infections, a supposed second wave, and everything we (must) do to avert that (false) panic.
In this 'imposed rush' it is so often not about the questions that urgently need to be asked and answered. For the evaluation of such a comprehensive policy, we would have to meet nationally. Preferably in parliament! But otherwise also in an extra-parliamentary committee of inquiry (bpoc2020), as it has now also got off the ground in the Netherlands in imitation of Germany and where the first session will take place this month! 11

In the Netherlands, Professor Michaéla Schippers has done a lot of research into the negative consequences of the lockdown. It is inconceivable that her letters to politicians and ministers have not received a single response. On the basis of her research, she comes to astonishing findings. For example, more people worldwide die as a result of the lockdown than in the First and Second World Wars combined. In addition, 138 million people will starve to death and hundreds of millions of people will lose their jobs. Depression and anxiety have tripled among young people and pregnant women. How can this type of data remain out of the picture for so long? Only on October 3 last she first appeared in the media on Radio 1.

How long can ministers and politicians not give at home if they sound the alarm?
On 22 August, the Parool headline - our compliments for this - that the aforementioned 2000 doctors asked the government in an open letter to end the lockdown measures.12 As far as we know, nothing has been done about this.
Countless citizens and organizations also wrote many letters. About the Emergency Act, about the measures or a combination thereof.
The government and both Houses are buried in letters bearing numerous arguments from many right-minded citizens. How is it possible that doctors who speak out cannot count on a listening ear? Why then do they have to deal with an inspection or a reprimand from a professional association? Surely it should be the task of politicians and representatives of the people to protect all those thinking and investigative professionals and to encourage their participation? Especially in times of a new and unknown virus?

PCR TESTS UNSUITABLE FOR DIAGNOSIS | numbers don't say anything

Meanwhile, the reliability of the PCR tests as a diagnostic tool for viral effects is extremely low, this applies to positive, negative, false positive, false negative. This is confirmed by the head of the IC (Mr Gommers), and Van Dissel boss of the RIVM and many others. This PCR test is neither suitable nor specific enough to determine what is shown by the test. The test finds a piece of RNA. Exactly that piece can have all kinds of causes: a cold, pneumonia, a previous flu or a previous flu shot. A positive test may even indicate that you have built up immunity to the virus.
If people with a positive PCR test insist on a blood test, a different seasonal virus will often come out. Those test results don't say anything at all. The inventor of the PCR test has already warned Kary Mullis, who passed away last year. This test is not suitable for making a diagnosis.

Renowned scientist Mike Yeadon, formerly with the world's second largest pharmaceutical company (Pfizer), also acknowledges the problems with the PCR test.13 He says 90 percent of positive PCR tests are false positive. According to Yeadon, the former head of the lung disease and allergy research department, the corona measures are disproportionate and unnecessary to lock up society as a whole. In fact, if test results weren't constantly broadcast on TV, the pandemic would be over.
In an interview by Talk Radio London, he speaks unambiguously about it 'that the UK government is basing its policy to restrict human rights on completely false coronavirus data. The many tests are disastrous and should not be used like this. Who does not know this should be ashamed ', Yeadon said.
In a blog he explains again that the PCR test is only an attempt to get a sequence from a virus code. However, the test cannot distinguish between a live virus and a short DNA sequence from a virus that was decayed weeks or months ago and is no longer virologically relevant. The coronavirus is a new type of virus, but it is closely related to at least four other viruses that circulate freely in the population.
They are all coronaviruses ... and they contribute to the common cold. Since May, almost every positive corona test has been false. Not just a quarter, but 90 percent. So there cannot be a second wave at all. The actual death rate is low and severe forms of the disease are rare, so far as Mike Yeadon.

Three experienced scientists also write about the failure of the testing policy in HP / De Tijd van
27 September 14 By testing less and better, unnecessary damage to welfare and the economy can be prevented. According to them, the testing policy has expanded under pressure from WHO, politics, virologists and epidemiologists. With an expansion of the number of tests from thousands to hundreds of thousands per week (!), A shortage of expert personnel, good materials and laboratory spaces has arisen. It was therefore proposed to have tests analyzed in Abu Dhabi. Plans to move DNA beyond national borders have now been dropped due to privacy issues; the personal data of submitted tests could not be protected well enough. Now the analysis is again being done in the Netherlands.15 How can the authorities persist in these unsound, money-consuming and fear-mongering testing practices?

In the meantime, people are drumming about 'infections', determined with the same PCR test in the Netherlands and worldwide. If the test is unreliable, 'contamination' is a misleading word that must be totally 'disinfected'. The word 'contamination' has no meaning. At the same time, more testing apparently needs to be done every day, and policy is based on alleged 'positive' test results. Results, which can be about anything, including the annual flu types.
This is the reality upside down. Ordinary questions are no longer asked. Why are arguments and facts suddenly irrelevant? As if rational considerations are strange and a thing of the past. A common cold or flu no longer seems to exist. We briefly illustrate the fallacy of testing:

A positive test result is equated to be 'infected' is equated to being 'asymptomatic carrier' (being 'infected' without symptoms) * is equated to
being 'sick' (being 'infected' with symptoms) is equated to one 'pose a danger to fellow human beings' is equated to it 'contaminate the fellow man' is equated to
possible 'deadly contaminate' is equated to 'something like the plague or having Ebola'.
This means that personal and social suffering has been done.
For example, a society is unjustly held hostage, in need of conscience not to participate in 'culpable death'.
* To be clear: an 'asymptomatic carrier' is actually a healthy person with a well-functioning immune system that makes short work of disturbances.

This series of fallacies, when it takes itself somewhat seriously, does not serve science at all and belongs in the category of one hundred percent misinformation, scam or the fable newspaper. We invite everyone to contribute ideas. Nevertheless, drivers are continuing with stricter measures, because the number of 'positive tests' must be reduced. Because we would be in the second corona wave. No!

Why are the numbers of the positive tests so important, when these numbers say nothing at all? How is it possible that the boss of the RIVM explains in the room that the PCR test in itself says nothing and that he… announces a little later that we have entered the second wave? How is that measured?

How is it possible that a proposal by MP Van Haga to investigate the reliability of the PCR test is voted down in our parliament? That his call for validation will meet the same fate? That in a third request to investigate the PCR test, the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport has promised to comply with it 'for reasons of transparency', but that we do not know a deadline? When so many experts say that the PCR test is not good for determining covid-19, why can MPs then
oppose an investigation and allow the confusion, fear and deception to continue? Could this Member of Parliament not have had an investigation into the PCR test himself? Is this not the first file that must be opened in the interests of public health and the saving of exorbitant costs? A test that costs an average of around 65 to 95 euros. There is a lot of money for it.
And if so much and from different quarters - more than is quoted here - comes out about this test, why do authorities maintain this story? Could testing have become more of a subtle and political way to 'mold' people? The result of the test puts people in a box and influences their behavior.
The non-testers can also simply be placed in a box. Testing limits the freedom of movement of the tested person and of the people who were 'interacting'. Is it sometimes useful to have a better picture of citizens and their social interactions and to fit them into a system of rewards and punishments? It's not even about obligation, but about social coercion.
Any sore throat caused by a common seasonal cold can easily develop a sense of guilt. Mutual social control thus slips into our coexistence and drives us further apart or even turns us against each other.

Something else about the 'contagiousness'. Do we still remember the Black Lives Matter demonstration on Dam Square on June 1 with thousands and the freedom demonstration in Berlin on August 29 with more than 1 million attendees? These meetings have by no means led to outbreaks!
You can hardly imagine a nicer 'test street'. Yet it is remarkable that the successful outcome of this real life events do not stick in people's minds as much as the talk shows on the TV?
That makes you think!
Do we not lose sight of reality due to the enormous amount of contradictory information?

WALKING INFECTION FIRES | unnecessary medicalization

What the word 'contamination' does to us is aptly expressed by journalist Karel Beckman:

The government labels its citizens as 'walking hotbeds of infection'. All a great danger to the health of another.

This influenza season, which is not accompanied by more deaths than any other season, the governments of most countries have waged war against the freedoms of its citizens.
Totalitarianism is emerging, and the humble citizens accept it for fear of death.
Life has come to revolve around the fear of dying.
However, courage and freedom are strong values ​​that make it possible to be good and happy
to celebrate existence. These are being pushed away and that is an attack against our freedom that must be repelled.

The measures have long ceased to be a well-intended action to protect us from a temporary threat. They are about whether we as citizens control our own lives or whether we have masters who henceforth dispose of us.

The corona rules do not target sick persons who pose a risk of contamination and are therefore temporarily isolated. They are compulsorily imposed on the entire population. They define all citizens, sick or not, as walking sources of infection, as a danger to their fellow human beings,
just because there is a virus in the country.
And not even a particularly dangerous virus: the number of deaths from corona is half lower than the number of flu deaths in 2018

Back to the numbers. The numbers of the 'pandemic' were predicted with the mathematical models of the English biologist Ferguson (of Imperial College). Global policy was also based on this. However, these figures soon turned out to be exaggerated. Why was this message not given a place in a press conference? Why has corona policy not been revised, when the numbers of sick and deaths turned out to be - fortunately - much lower than predicted? The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, comparable to the RIVM) has explicitly stated that there is no pandemic.17 At the end of August, the CDC also released surprising figures for the past six months. It showed that 94 percent of the corona deaths had two or three underlying conditions; only 6 percent of the deaths involved the virus alone.
How is it possible that this observation was not widely reported with great relief in the media, a press conference or a parliamentary debate? Why is it that the WHO in its communication maintains a 'pandemic', as also visible on the WHO homepage, when facts show so differently? Also the national governments, seeing blind and hearing deaf, are taking increasingly tougher measures? These questions have since become very legitimate.

MOUTH CAPS AND HEALTH METER | false security with damage

Meanwhile, in all this disruption, regulatory solutions are frantically sought.
After a few try-outs in the big cities, the discussion last week focused emphatically on a national mouth masks advice. Mouthguards that do not add anything from a medical point of view, but affect health and well-being in all age categories. Dentists indicate that the teeth suffer a lot. The boss of the RIVM says he does not like the mouth caps. Nevertheless, it is now strongly advised to wear it in the public interior space. How is it possible? Do we also do that with a flu? How can we feel safe in doing so?
The genie is out of the bottle it seems. Those who listen to the radio these days, for example, hear all day long how students in schools do or do not follow the urgent advice. The same goes for people in shopping streets or in public spaces. The very healthy winner of the Tour de France is systematically depicted with a mouth mask. The reserve players of top clubs in professional football too.
We cannot see this other than controlling it with images that are repeated over and over again.
According to the RIVM, there is no proof that the masks work. There is more to it. Face masks are used to influence behavior. The authorities themselves indicate this too. 18
In our opinion, mouth masks are used as a social and psychological instrument to control human behavior.
This is convenient for the administrators of the safety regions. Because mouth caps reveal the dichotomy between 'dissidents' and 'followers'. With that distinction, social divisions and
mutual distrust is rampant. In our opinion, this does not do justice to our multiform society, especially if there is no medical basis for a masking obligation. Incidentally, had our own ministers not said that face masks offer false security?

In the past few weeks, the German ENT specialist Bodo Schiffmann has already established in three children that they have died as a result of wearing a mouth mask.19 Top neurologist Margareta Griesz-Brisson emphasizes the irrevocable damage that a mouth mask causes in the brain. 20
Along the same line - without any factual substantiation - a one and a half meter society has been imposed on mankind with disastrous consequences. Here too, this extremely drastic measure has no convincing substantiation.

Of course it is respectful to keep a distance from the other person in case of suspected contagion. We have always done that. It is of course no reason to enshrine a waiver rule in any law. The rule is not only devastating for human coexistence (five feet away with neighbors, friends, dance partner, colleagues, etc.), but also easy to refute.
Let us never lay this measure down in law and scrap it immediately. Human contact is part of life. The right to dispose of this yourself… also.

BLIND STARS ON CORONA | under-treatment of the sick and vulnerable

Due to the disproportionate attention to corona, insufficient attention is paid to other diseases and conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and COPD. People do not go to the doctor or go to the doctor too late or there is no room for them at the outpatient clinics. With 98% of the 'corona patients' little or nothing is wrong. Because of this emphasis, other people with often much more severe complaints remain untreated.
For example, 'people with weaker health' (the elderly and the sick) often disappear under the radar, with the reason that we must 'protect' the 'vulnerable' in society from corona (read: isolate). Then we can legitimately ask ourselves what we are doing, if in this way we simultaneously undermine the general health of (not only) these 'vulnerable'. This choice is unethical and merciless. When we deny care to people, it can never be to spare or protect the 'vulnerable'.

A CDA member of parliament in the debate on the emergency law goes one step further with his statement 'why freedom when the health of my mother-in-law is at stake?' With which health is elevated to a fundamental right and placed above freedom. Is it not the task of the government to arrange that citizens have access to good and diverse information, to health care facilities at their own discretion and choice, good nutrition, a clean living environment, et cetera?
In the current situation, why does the government not enter into dialogue with employers and employees to enable citizens to expand voluntary care tasks or, if necessary, go into quarantine at their own discretion and insight? With the devised emergency measures not only the vulnerable people live more in fear and isolation, but also the whole social life around it is cut off. Why this reversal of fundamental rights? An improper justification for an un-argued policy choice?

CONTAMINATION | unclear word with major consequences

What an influential word contamination has turned out to be. A term without any clinical meaning, but with a lot of meaning. Not so long ago you could 'light' each other, now you 'infect' each other and the latter has a completely different intonation. When 'contamination' is seen as 'the plague', it unceremoniously overwrites all conceivable diseases that exist. Apparently an infection can be deadly, even if you have a strong immune system.
It even turns out to be able to override a healthy lifestyle. The unpredictability and aggression of the 'killer' virus has been carved deeply by all that fanfare and has become intertwined somewhere in our brains with times of poor hygiene and primal fears of death. The word 'contamination' is a WHO criterion and can be used for anything.

Our Public Health Act (Wpg) is also tied to 'contagiousness'. If we don't obey the rules, that 'contamination' flares up again. It almost looks like an enemy weapon. What is all this for? As with masks and tests, infectivity becomes a criterion on which authorities can 'monitor'. Does this not lead to a greater concentration of power and less influence and self-determination of citizens worldwide? The WHO health officials can thus elevate any 'snot nose' to a pandemic. Subsequently, a whole arsenal of state control comes into effect. This is what we are now seeing increasingly happening.

The figures and graphs do not match or are disproportionate to what is communicated to the population. In talk shows and newspapers there is a lot of fuss and superficial talk, often of no value. The numbers of test lanes and ICs seem seriously exaggerated. There is no question of overcrowded test streets throughout the country - on site visit. Several test streets had hardly been visited. In other years we had to contend with overcrowding in the ICU during the flu season as well. Incidentally, the capacity in the IC has not been adapted to this for years.
There is currently no overcrowding of IC beds. The hospitals we approach are not full of patients. There are more admissions on the ICs, but that is normal for the time of the year, also in comparison with previous years.

What is the second wave about then? Suddenly no one has the flu anymore or has no cold? Or does something else make you sick? The registered 'infections' have shown strong growth in recent weeks. There is a concern in the media. We have already noted in this letter that the PCR test has many problems. We are not immediately concerned that the number of hospital admissions is currently showing some growth. Historical data series show that there is always an increase in the number of flu cases at the beginning of autumn. Of course, other hospital treatments must be avoided. Yet it seems to us that 700-800 patients, who also scored positive for corona, must be an easy-to-use number for the Dutch healthcare system. Even if this number continues to increase. Every sick person deserves adequate support. We can follow the most prominent doctors in the Netherlands, if they say that we now know better than in March how these patients should be treated.

If (more) patients come again with unknown syndromes, it is important to 'broaden'
to look and to investigate what is going on from multiple perspectives. Then we can reach beyond the 'tube of virus outbreaks', as new insights are reaching us about immunology. We can see the body as a healthy system that cooperates with viruses and bacteria and the meaning of good nutrition in this. On the other hand, there are harmful environmental factors, such as air and soil pollution, pesticides, medication, stress, particulate matter and the influence of electromagnetic radiation, which has only increased over the last hundred years (with 5G as the most recent step). Science should constantly renew itself - at the service of the population.

In the meantime, there are many anxious people on the one hand and people on the other are going against it. This creates great discord in society, friendships and families. A division that makes everything worse than it already is. Based on what?
It is serious that there is no reliable information about the facts. Well-meaning citizens are thus played off against each other on the question of whether or not they comply or should comply with the rules. That is grist to the mill of those who profit from this.

There is always an overheated media that almost exclusively provides disinformation day after day. Their role is extremely dubious. Why is it that the government, and in particular the Minister of Health, does not intervene? Why must additional media jump into the gaping hole of disinformation to allow nuanced and knowledgeable experts to speak? At the risk of being 'banned' by the censorship policies of the big tech companies, the government and
the European Union?

How is it possible that parliamentarians and citizens agree that no more questions can be put to ministers about the corona policy by invoking the Government Information Act (WOB)?
With the bewildering argument that the minister is too busy for that? How can journalists and citizens get their information? Information is the fuel of democracy, isn't it? Partly because nothing comes out about the OMT consultation? How can waves of conflicting media messages have gripped us for months?
Confronted with these confusing messages, many citizens drop out. People no longer know what to believe and are - understandably enough - rabid with changing numbers, indicators and missing arguments.21 Any citizen who turns away from this 'madness' is a loss to a community in which people want to actively work for their own health and that of the other.

Meanwhile, the economic deforestation is deeply felt and the major consequences have yet to reach us… One company after another is falling, and with these companies the many families that are connected to it. Little by little, life is being sucked out of our society. Citizens can no longer make their voices heard ... in heated debates in community centers and district halls, in city councils with crowded public galleries. With a cup or glass of fun to conclude. For fear of this accursed 'contamination' we keep our distance, let us turn ourselves against each other, let us unjustifiably take away a part of their 'life' from the youth.
Out of fear of 'contamination', an injured person turned out to remain on the ground because no one dared to come to the rescue. Are you also aware that emergency services are not allowed to use direct mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and must wait for an ambulance with a resuscitation bag? How far do we allow the 'dehumanization virus' to penetrate our society?
How come we turn out to be taking so much together? How could the assumption that the lockdown contributed to the decline of the virus have taken hold so deeply? That we have gotten the virus under control with our measures? That testing and quick tests give us clarity? All categorically incorrect.
We have all become 'believers' instead of asking for 'facts'. People who think differently were usually not offered a platform, while it is precisely this 'other voice' that can protect a group from tunnel vision. Based on a 'diagnosis with a wet finger', a solution direction has been chosen that is unparalleled. And that track was continued. It was only about upscaling and downscaling, IC capacity, second lockdown, testing, test capacity, infections, outbreaks.

APPROACH TO DRIVING SAND | fallacies 'pierced'

From the foregoing we can simply conclude that the corona policy is based on various fallacies that can simply be punctured. The keywords used to communicate with the population do not appear to be clear or correct indicators. Here we list a few important keywords of the virus program - as deprogramming - at a glance.

There is no pandemic: the WHO can declare any runny nose a pandemic on the basis of 'contagiousness'. Infectiousness is not a clinical concept. It is an unclear word that, inappropriately, evokes associations of spreading germs and a hostile takeover of our body. We have become unnecessarily afraid of our body and of each other.

The PCR test can only detect a piece of residual RNA: without it being clear where it comes from and whether it has to do with a living virus. This means that the numbers of 'sick', 'deaths' and 'infections' cannot be attributed to covid-19 in the vast majority of cases.

It's not thanks to the lockdown or other measures: that the virus was on its way back again. The virus has evolved just like other viruses. The course of the virus is independent of the corona measures. In other words: it cannot be attributed to the lockdown that the number of patients decreased. Even though the authorities and many other people and parties assume that. This eliminates the need for a new lockdown for covid-19 .. 20 .. 21.

The virus is gone: It can of course pop up just like any other virus. But we need not be alarmed by saying that "the virus will never go away" or "that we will not be able to live again until the virus is gone." Or this one:… the Coronavirus is back, the 'infections' are increasing again… But, the testing was still very unreliable and how do you know whether it is a coronavirus infection. Since when did we get rid of the flu variants? We do not report on this on a daily basis with figures and graphs, do we? Isn't it desirable to boost our immune system?

If we list these fallacies and misleading concepts, then there remains
little substantiation about to justify the corona measures. Then the assumed foundation of the measures turns out to be based on quicksand.
The corona measures, as well as the communication about them, form a construct that
when a house of cards collapses when we look at the issue openly and honestly.
Let's no longer accept that we parrot (and reinforce) each other about the
'invisible clothes of the emperor'.
Rather, it is high time to investigate in an open debate what was going on
and is. In that openness, we can therefore learn more about this corona virus and how we can better manage the health of all of us.

As if this corona train has not yet caused enough havoc, as we indicated at the beginning, on 7 and 8 October the drastic Emergency Act will be debated in the Lower House. A law that stems from the same policy tube as the corona measures, a policy based on 'belief' and not on 'facts'. How can such a draconian law be introduced in our parliament without the corona policy being sufficiently questioned and discussed? Again, let's first have an open and wide debate with each other, in and outside parliament.
How the corona crisis will develop from now on is unclear. Returning to the situation as it was is unlikely. There are too many changes going on for that. But working together on an open and responsible society is of great importance to everyone in our country. This includes our plea for positive health care and extreme restraint with measures that
erode our rule of law.

Without such a 'good conversation' about facts and arguments, an Emergency Act cannot be an issue at all. Whatever 'political color' our representatives have, such a drastic law has no factual basis and cannot be approved! Our MPs are there on our behalf! There can never ever be an 'agreement' about such a draconian law. Such a disproportionate law cannot be passed without substantiation.
We can already predict what will happen if the measures in force are evaluated in a few weeks. The numbers will not have decreased and if we do not follow the rules, according to the authorities, strict measures will follow. We already know that numbers are increasing but also that they are meaningless.

In fact, there is a growing gap between two different worlds:
1) the world of ascending 'contaminations' and second or even third 'waves' with loud trumpet blasts by media, administrators and their advisers - caught in tunnel vision.
2) the world of 'factual inquiry', the evaporation of fear and seeing through the 'tunnel bubble'.

We see that these worlds can diverge or even become hostile to each other.
The only way out of this discord is an open debate, collaboration and factual research.
In world 1, it is moved further to a lockdown. After all, more tests produce more meaningless 'infections'. In order to avert this panic, further measures are being propagated, with an Emergency Act as a self-evident conclusion. World 2 - many citizen researchers, citizen journalists and scientists - is conducting further research.22 First, account must be given for the chosen policy.
Perhaps such an in-depth parliamentary debate can begin on 7 and 8 October? Not about an Emergency Act. But about the corona policy pursued? We are happy to watch and participate.


The Bill Emergency Act or Emergency Act or Corona Act (Legal name: Temporary Provisions in connection with longer term measures to combat the epidemic of Covid-19 or Temporary Act on Measures Covid-19)23 has been presented as a legal framework for dealing with the covid-19 virus. It was brought into circulation quite silently last June. After growing criticism, the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport withdrew the proposal to adjust it. This second version did not appear to have changed much in terms of content. The 'track & trace app' has been removed from the law and will be elaborated in a separate bill. The possibility to intervene behind the front door was also removed (although this passage can be added again later).
On September 29 it was announced that government parties VVD, CDA, D66 and ChristenUnie had reached an agreement with opposition parties PvdA, GroenLinks, SGP and 50Plus about this bill. This would pave the way for a majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The change in these negotiations related to the duration of the law and the amount of the fines. In the event of an epidemic, the law applies for three months. The fines are adjusted downwards from 390 to 99 or 95 euros. In addition, (read carefully!) The maximum prison sentence for violating distance rules or a ban on gathering together will be lowered from one month to two weeks. Two weeks of deprivation of liberty for violating the distance regulation is still unimaginable to us.
Furthermore, the House of Representatives has assumed more power, it is said

If we look back on the last six months, this is in no way a guarantee for careful monitoring of the ministers. Moreover, with the Wpg and the Emergency Act, the Chamber has hardly any influence, as long as the WHO determines what is necessary.
In the new bill, if the cabinet has announced a corona measure, the House can object within a week. And in an emergency - note:… that is already possible if the WHO one
would declare a cold a pandemic - the cabinet can push through a measure. That's anything but back to normal.
In summary, to our great dismay - even after the 'negotiations' between various political parties - the core of the bill has been retained, so that behavior on the street, such as keeping your distance, is already punishable in the event of an epidemic. Up to two weeks in prison if you don't keep enough distance. How does it exist!

Incidentally, there are other laws that breathe the same spirit as the Emergency Law. This is about the Compulsory Mental Health Care Act, which came into effect at the beginning of 2020, which regulates compulsory admission and coercion in care The Temporary Act Notification Application Covid-19, or the CoronaMelder, was adopted on October 6 in the 1st Chamber26 and will be activated on Saturday October 10. In addition, the Telecom location law, European censorship law and a constitutional amendment for the Senate set in motion in response to Corona. Power is timeless. We live in a time when these laws coexist with the increasing surveillance capabilities of big tech companies. By recording, registering and checking everything, state power increases effortlessly. They know that all too well in China. What does this have to do with a virus? It leads to a visible increase in control and fear, as well as to the far-reaching destruction of our rule of law and civil rights.
The Emergency Act bill has brought the abolition of the rule of law one step closer. Perhaps there are still enough representatives of the population who doubt whether or not there are conscientious objections to the proposal. We sincerely hope that. Also for the representatives, politicians, administrators and their children!

We urge you - fellow citizens - to take note of the legislative proposal that is currently before us. An unprecedented elephant in the china shop of our parliamentary system and an undesirably drastic, long arm in our coexistence. And that to top it all off unproven corona policy? Is everyone an outlaw? Do we promote a culture of fear and click?
Is there still room for pluralism? Are we going back to the XNUMXs? If the bill were to be passed, the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport could
(in collaboration with the Minister of Justice and Security and the Minister of the Interior)
immediately decide to:

  • restrict or close entire business sectors (such as catering, gyms, saunas, etc.)
  • schools to close
  • daycare centers
  • to close nursing and retirement homes for visitors
  • buildings
  • public places and areas
  • establishments
  • to issue professional bans
  • prohibit demonstrations, meetings and events
  • The sentences have also been increased considerably: a minimum of 444 to thousands of euros and several months of imprisonment
  • A lower fine of 104 euros applies to children or they will be taken to Bureau Halt
    sent if, for example, they do not keep a distance of five feet from their friends
    or girlfriends


The minister can use the scope provided by the provisions and the safety net provision
then also decide that:

  • you must wear a mouth mask outside and inside
  • you are only allowed out at certain times of the day
  • from tomorrow you will not stay 1,5 but 2,5 meters apart
  • people are required to be quarantined
  • gatherings of more than 2 or 3 people are prohibited
  • everyone is obliged to take a PCR test, even if many experts state that this test is unsuitable to determine an infection
  • travel abroad is prohibited
  • you are not allowed to go more than 5 km outside your home address
  • 'infected' children are taken away from their parents (which is already happening elsewhere in the world and close to home in Germany)
  • everyone is obliged to get vaccinated, even if the efficacy and safety has not been proven in any way (and that several vaccinations are required per person)
  • entire apartment buildings must be forced into quarantine
    (in this list, changes are still possible about the amount of fines and the duration of the restriction of freedom)


Courage comes when people know what is at stake.27


1. Juggling and deception with numbers and graphs

2.Voss and 38 corona deaths door~a7fe09ec/

Rectification newspaper report AD

3. Municipality of The Hague instructions for parents, children and swimming lessons

4. Initiative 800 Dutch doctors address the government and parliament with an urgent letter

Dutch doctors

Dutch initiative Medical Emergency doctors and lawyers

6.Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss
Doctors initiatives across national borders
Germany France Belgium Spain United Kingdom and outside Europe Israel Australia and the US

Belgian health experts demand investigation into WHO fraud
fake-the-covid-19-pandemic /

8.dr Reinhard Fuellmich - lawyer indicting crimes against humanity, initiative

9.Corona measures no effect ohne-einfluss-auf-covid-19-entwicklung/

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) survey

Government document spring 2020 Germany that the lockdown would not have been necessary

10. Where is the evidence-based approach of the Lockdown policy?

11. Initiative Extra-Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry in the Netherlands

12. More Critical Physicians:
2000 doctors and medical professionals signed an open letter calling on the House of Representatives to debate the proportionality of the corona measures.

NOS Journal and critical doctors letter 03102020

13.PCR testing and Mike Yeadon - former chief scientist at pharmaceutical company Pfizer

Kary Mullis herself about the PCR test

14.PCR tests Dr Ir. Carla Peeters, immunologist previously RIVM Prof. Wim Vanden Berghe biomedical science Antwerp and Prof. Mattias Desmet psychology and education Ghent

15.PCR test

16. Karel Beckman journalist / writer

17.CDC data Wuhan coronavirus
death-risk-for-people-under-50-years /

CDC Covid-19 24052020
whos-3-4 /

18.NineforNews Mandatory mouth masks

19. Bodo Schifmann, German ENT doctor and member Arzte für Aufklärug

20 German neurologist Margareta Griesz-Brisson - neurological damage

21.Belgian doctor Daniel Rodenstein confusion about pandemic and the pychosis of Belgium

22. Healthy Mind Magazine, News without censorship - new media initiative

23 Temporary Measures Act COVID-19

24 Corona Act / Emergency Act de Kamer

25 Mandatory Mental Health Care Act Recording-en-dwang-in-de-zorg

26 Temporary Act Notification Application Covid-19

27. Pieter Stuurman explains how the existing power system leads to a repetition of moves

Tip: if a link does not work properly, please copy it and paste it into the bar of the internet browser.

Download the letter here:

5 4 To vote
Article review
Subscribe now
Subscribe to
May be your real name or a pseudonym
Not required
1 reaction
newest most voted
Inline feedback
See all comments
Dutch NL English EN French FR German DE Spanish ES
What is your response to this?x