People make jokes about taking some “Dutch courage” but it was actually the Anglo’s that needed “Dutch courage” to face the Dutch:
Dutch courage, also known as pot-valiance (or potvaliancy), refers to courage gained from intoxication with alcohol. The popular story dates the etymology of the term Dutch courage to English soldiers fighting in the Anglo-Dutch Wars (1652–1674) and perhaps as early as the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648).
Looks like the Dutch are fighting the Anglo-Zionists again. Perhaps the police (government tools) should get drunk so that they can face the brave Dutch volk. This time the whole government has been corrupted by Anglo-Zionist ideals – just look at the sham MH 17 trial.
I am Dutch Australian and I have lived, worked and studied in Holland. The Dutch are a tolerant, law abiding and sometimes a bit too “progressive” but they are now waking up. Even they can see that Covid is being used as a mask for tyranny. It makes me proud to see ordinary men, women and children resisting.
Here is a letter that came into my possession. I translated it using Google chrome and will link to the original. It demonstrates that world wide more and more health professionals are really worried.
Here is the original document Noodwet (Emergency Legislation) the translation is below
I would like to express my serious concern and draw your attention to the bill that would be submitted on 1 July (Annex 1 Bill), which lays down the current emergency regulations in the name of / supposedly for the protection of public health.
In addition to the fact that this law entails extreme punitive measures, every fine is accompanied by a criminal record and both enforcement and interpretation are left to a great deal of arbitrariness (Appendix 2, reaction of the Bar Association), this also does not lead to the aim of what it actually should be. serve to improve public health.
Health is a diffuse concept in which the past few years have switched to a more comprehensive definition of the definition (M. Huber 2011), “The ability to adapt and to direct, in the light of the physical, emotional and social challenges in life.” This definition is not based on illness, but on functioning, quality of life and a holistic view of man. Physical, mental and social state form one whole in this. This definition has been adopted by WHO.Current global measures taken to combat SARS-CoV-2 largely violate this definition.
At the time of the peak and uncertainty of the pandemic, this may have been defensible, but there is no scientific basis for continuing the emergency measures, in fact there may be more evidence against the current measures than before. The measures include compulsory social distance, (semi-) compulsory isolation, hygiene measures and mandatory personal protection measures.
Damage in the area of the pychosocial domain, economic damage and damage to the non-covid health care is unparalleled and many times greater than the profit of the life years of corona patients. 1
The measures would have resulted in anywhere between 13,000 and 21,000 healthy life years in corona patients, in addition to 10,000 to 15,000 life years it cost. Due to the permanent measures, the hospital capacity will be so limited in the near future that there will be no question of overtaking care. Gupta Strategists estimates that the non-delivered regular care cost 100,000 to 400,000 healthy life years. In addition to the loss of healthy life years, this is also a major loss financially. 2 1, 2 million referrals via healthcare domain have been postponed, 40% of which are still waiting for an appointment. 3 The fact that this cannot be completed faster is largely due to the current 1.5 meter distance requirement, which leads to major logistics challenges in hospitals and also jeopardizes good outpatient care.
There is little to no evidence for the usefulness of social distance 1 to 2 meters away. There is growing evidence for aerosols and super-spreader dispersion with potential roles in humidity and ventilation. In the open air, distance seems to make little difference and people become little infected, while in insufficiently ventilated spaces people seem to be easily infected outside 1.5m. 4
On the other hand, social distancing does have a clear negative effect on public health. Infectiologists indicate that the measures have worked too well, as there is still very little antibody formation in society at the moment. Viruses and other communicable diseases are part of natural human existence. Covid-19 also mainly affected the elderly and of the affected persons, more than 85% experienced it mildly. These data, which have recently become known, necessitate reconsideration of the measures taken. For example, reverse isolation of the sick and vulnerable groups, whereby measures must always take into account the incidental damage to the entire society.
All in all too much uncertainty to lay down the current measures in a law. Taking all this into account, I am very surprised by the current bill to give the measures an official character with the possibility of extension for an indefinite period. The government relies on ‘the importance of public health’.
I find the government’s justification that this happens in the light of public health shocking and I think that as a professional group we can create clarity in the debate and we must express ourselves more about the proportionality and subsidiarity of the measures.
Below I will further substantiate my opinion and explain why I think these measures go too far and go beyond their goal.
I would like to make a public appeal to my professional associations and fellow health care providers to comment on the current measures and the proposed legislation. I want to draw attention to and call for an open discussion in which caregivers can and dare to speak out without fear of repercussions.
On 2 June 2020, summary proceedings were brought against the Dutch State (Appendix 3 – summary proceedings 5), which called into question the measures that are currently under assessment as a law. These summary proceedings serve since
'... the law provides for the positive and governmental obligations to protect the Dutch population against the effects of the epidemic. However, these positive obligations also have an emphatic mirror side. The government can also be held under these positive obligations to prevent certain violations of fundamental rights or to enable the exercise of fundamental rights. The law devotes only limited attention to this and does not provide for measures to fulfill this positive obligation, even during an epidemic. After all, prohibitions will suffice. This requires further consideration of the law and the measures laid down therein. Provision must be made for a 'fair balance' in line with the case law. ' ".. On 22 and 23 January 2020, following the outbreak of COVID-19, an Emergency Committee meeting was held in China led by the Director General. At this meeting, there was insufficient support to qualify the outbreak as a PHEIC. According to data from China, the virus would cause serious complications in 25% of infections with a 4% fatality rate. The human-to-human transmissibility of the virus and an estimated transfer rate R0 of 1.4 to 2.5 is considered to be of concern. However, the countries of the European Union thought it was too early to scale up the case to a PHEIC. During a follow-up meeting on January 30 of the Emergency Committee, these countries still agree to the proposal to scale up COVID-19 to a PHEIC. " In a news conference on March 11, 2020, the Director General of WHO qualified COVID-19 as a pandemic. According to the Director General, 4,291 people worldwide had died with COVID-19 at the time. In unprecedented firm terms, Director General calls on the Member States to 'urgent and aggressive action'. In accordance with Article 49 of the IHL, recommendations have been made to Member States as to the measures to be taken. According to the definition changed for unclear reasons in 2009, a pandemic is “the worldwide spread of a new disease”. The harmfulness of a virus is therefore no longer a criterion for declaring a pandemic. ' (Appendix 3)
Up to and including 14 June 10:00 a total of 48 783 COVID-19 patients were reported to RIVM in the Netherlands. To date, 11,828 of reported patients have been hospitalized and 6,059 have died. Half of the patients admitted were 69 years or older, half of the deceased patients were 83 years or older. (RIVM, epidemiological situation COVID-19 Netherlands 14-06-2020)
If daily death and infection numbers are reported, it is not surprising that fear and panic are felt among the population. People are not used to that and have no perspective with regard to the figures. However, there is a perspective behind these figures and I think it is the joint responsibility of doctors to make this perspective known. To illustrate, a (shortened) quote from RIVM;
“In the winter of (2017/2018), mortality was increased for 15 weeks, during the flu epidemic from week 50 2017 through week 15 2018. The mortality rate during the 18 week flu epidemic was estimated at 9,444. This was the highest mortality rate ever measured since the start of monitoring in 2009. The excess mortality mainly concerned people aged 75 years and older, but there were also several weeks in which the mortality was increased in people aged 55-64 and 65-74 years.
In the winter of (2016/2017), mortality was increased for 12 weeks and coincided with the 15-week flu epidemic. The excess mortality mainly concerned people aged 75 years and older. The excess mortality was estimated at 7,503 (8,890 for the entire winter period, weeks 40 to 20). In the previous 5 years, the mortality rate was only higher in 2014/2015, when the longest flu epidemic ever recorded in the Netherlands (mortality rate of 8,600 in 21 weeks).
In winter 2014/2015, the peak was higher than the peaks in the past 5 years. More than 65,000 people died, which is more than 8,600 more than expected in these 21 weeks (mainly among the over-75s). The excess mortality was higher than in the previous 4 influenza seasons. ” 6
The numbers mentioned here could have been communicated in the same way as the current numbers (except that in recent years there have been more deaths from seasonal viruses). Of course, the measures have contributed to a flattening of the number of sick and deceased persons to the new corona virus, but the question is whether the under-mortality will not lead to a comparable total mortality in the next 2 years as in recent years. And of course it was very important to secure hospital capacity and this required scaling-up of care, but the question is to what extent this necessitates a ‘new-normal / social distance’ and the present law.
The current measures are supposedly taken from ‘public health concerns’. If the government were really concerned about public health, it should have been evident in recent years from measures that really matter for public health. Currently, a law is being introduced that removes the “breach of the peace”, penalizes social contact with a criminal record, and violates the right to self-determination through the ability to prohibit someone from moving or visiting loved ones. In contrast, despite overwhelming evidence, no ban has been imposed on smoking or alcohol in the past 50 years. No sugar and no salt tax has been set. Healthy lifestyle promotion measures are only introduced sporadically and are financially supported, there is no emphasis on one’s own recovery capacity with regard to medication use and social services are being stripped down at a rapid pace.
This causes more than 73,730 deaths annually, year after year. Every day in the Netherlands, for example, there are 104 deaths from cardiovascular diseases (myocardial / cerebral infarction), 28 deaths from lung cancer, 8 per day from diabetes mellitus, 1 from alcoholic liver diseases and 61 deaths per day from mental illness. And so countless. 7
All chronic, daily causes of death of which we have never been presented in the current way in the mainstream media. And all causes of which the number would decrease due to stronger government actions. Not to mention damage to people and the environment due to insufficient legislation on, for example, over-medication, poisons and agricultural substances.
At the moment it also seems in the media that we no longer accept natural death. Fortunately, the proportion of over-70s who die compared to younger people has increased from 30 to almost 50% in the past 30 years. 8 Where death belongs to life, but especially to older life.
More than 85% of all people who have tested Covid-19 positive have experienced it mild to very mild (read unnoticed). Half of the covid-19 patients who died were 82 years of age and 80% were 70 years of age or older. 70% of all hospitalized patients were 70 years of age or older. Of the 30% aged 70 years and younger, 43% had cardiovascular disease, 26.9% diabetes mellitus, 24% had chronic lung disease, and many other underlying conditions. (see the agreement with the groups in the previous paragraph). And without downplaying the sick and dead, the proportionality of measures does determine the life expectancy and wish of those who became ill and / or died. 9
In light of the damage that other common (infectious) diseases cause annually, worldwide, conditions for which there is life-saving medication or where proven meaningful social measures could be taken, the current global measures are in response to the SARS CoV-2 outbreak all the more indefensible. There are currently over 8 million proven cases, of which there are 3.8 million active cases and a total of 453000 people who have died from the virus, the majority of whom are aged 70 or older.
Every year, about 1 million people worldwide (especially young adults and children) die of AIDS, while it has been financially feasible for years to provide HAART medication, information and condoms free of charge to large vulnerable groups (women). 10 Every year, more than 500,000 people (mainly children, the main reason for child mortality) die from malaria, which can be largely reduced by cheap mosquito nets, information and protective clothing. Chronic diseases are the cause of 71% of all deaths per year (41 million deaths per year, of which 80% are cardiovascular diseases, COPD, Diabetes mellitus and cancer) 11 where lifestyle (exercise, diet, mental health) these numbers could drastically decrease.
The fact that such measures have never been implemented with current strength and steadfastness makes the current situation incomprehensible to me.
I think care providers are needed to make this perspective clear, in between the violence of all the panic and distracting reports of the moment.
There are more than 10 different forms of treatment that are currently used in the world and are being tested against SARS-Co V-2. Including a lot of promising things that are being researched at a rapid pace. 12
If effective treatment is found here, the importance of ‘vaccinating the entire population’ with a hastily manufactured and insufficiently tested vaccine will disappear. It is therefore incomprehensible to me that the government so strongly states that the current measures could only be lifted if the population can be vaccinated. In addition, a large proportion of the above seasonal flu deaths have been vaccinated with the same year’s flu vaccine. For the time being, a vaccine can never be 100% protective for single-strand RNA viruses. A treatment that could cure the 5% of people who experience serious complaints from a Covid-19 infection, seems to me to be more effective on mortality and morbidity and much safer for public health.
Taking all this into account, I am very surprised by the current bill to give the measures an official character with the possibility of an extension for an indefinite period. The government relies on ‘the importance of public health’. I find the government’s justification that this happens in the light of public health shocking and I think that as a professional group we can create clarity in the debate and we must express ourselves more about the proportionality and subsidiarity of the measures.
Perhaps part of the profession already thinks that way, for a large part of the population this is not clearly visible now. As long as it is not clear that within our profession there is also doubt about the necessity of the current measures, this can give a distorted picture to society in which critical discussion is avoided or weakened. This can further damage public health.
As a doctor, we all took our oath or vow, which was adapted in 2003 to the current time and, among other things, states’ … I recognize the limits of my possibilities. I will be open and verifiable. I know my responsibility to society and will promote the availability and accessibility of health care. I don’t abuse my medical knowledge, even under pressure. … ‘13 In this light, I find the current’ shaming and blaming ‘of doctors who give an opposition to government policy and RIVM, who illuminate other than a vaccine route or ask critical questions about the state of affairs, extremely worrying. I don’t understand this but would like to understand. In addition, for me it emphasizes the double side of the current situation, because if we really had the goal to ‘save’ as many people as possible from this new corona virus, we would seem to seize all possibilities and ideas to achieve this. Instead, we exclude the first line and integrative views, in fact, they are almost demonized, while thorough scientific research in these areas is just as feasible as in a hospital setting. Certainly if even a fraction of the research funding that now flows into the academic centers would go there. 14
Again, I would like to make a public appeal to my professional associations and fellow health care providers to comment on current measures and proposed legislation. I want to draw attention to and call for an open discussion in which caregivers can and dare to speak out without fear of repercussions.
I would like to ask the professional associations to pay attention to current developments and to offer and support space for discussion.
With concern, hope and in a personal capacity,
1. BMJ 2020;369:m2466, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2020.05.048 /
4. zie artikelen van dr. Streeck. Prof. S. Miller, koor repetities zoals in LA, dr. Drosten en
9. RIVM, epidemiologische situatie COVID-19 Nederland 08-05-2020 en juni 2020
12. PMCID: PMC7162768, o.a. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.11.987958v1
The Dutch resist tyranny
This is not about a virus…..it never was. The riots are not about black lives either. The Climate change agenda has nothing to do with climate. This is a global mechanism to force change that has accelerated since 9/11. Fear is the key. They use fear to stop you thinking. They want you back in your box. They are building your matrix pod. They create chaos so that they can impose a new order. All the governments around the world are run by the 1% and they have a vision for your future which you are not going to like. They will not suffer. They will not go without or lack anything. Their mask is slipping. Make them show their face. Make them show the face of true evil. Do not be deceived because at heart they are tyrants. People need to realize that this is a spiritual war.
Good on the Dutch for showing courage….you make me proud.
Goed voor de Nederlanders voor het tonen van moed … je maakt me trots.