The following are my favorite quotes from the documentary “COVID19
– The System”. I have transcribed it for four main reasons:
1. It's a Dutch
film, and is not widely available on many platforms for people to
easily find.
2. Even if they could find it, many people will not
watch it since they don't speak Dutch.
4. It's really good and I agree with most of it (ending with the phrase "back to normal" is a bit regressive, considering the progressive solutions offered by the featured experts.)
So I have condensed the most important points down to the size of an article. This excellent research parallels my own. They have consulted many sources beyond the mainstream ones which are highly controlled by vested interests who use media for their own agendas. These quotes come from doctors, scientists, economists, researchers... NOT paid representatives of mega-corporations or the institutions they fund and use to influence the public. In other words, this is a much more complete, unbiased, rational look at the situation. This is not just about a virus, but also money, power, media, technology, and how these are all being used to dominate and manipulate the masses through fear and fraud.
“Why pursue this policy when there are many more non-COVID victims than COVID victims? Is this really about our public health? Clearly the pharmaceutical industry's business model is to make profit. As much profit as possible. It's got nothing to do with health care. If it did, they would have made sure to produce good medicines. The new products they've put on the market are generally poison. Nothing more. If you look closely at the characteristics of the virus, the measures taken and consequences are out of proportion with the virus itself. This is certainly a time full of danger, fear, change and transition. The virus triggered this, but the consequences are much greater. That's what we need to look at. They're drastic. When people talk about COVID-19 it's positioned more or less as an enemy. At first when we didn't know what was coming, they said: 'This is war. We have to fight it, eliminate it.' I thought: Hm, what is this virus? I didn't know either.
Viruses play a key role in nature. If you look at the timeline, viruses and bacteria have been around far longer than homo sapiens. Looking at how we're built, in terms of our immune system it becomes clear how incredibly well they work together. In nature it's all about collaboration: between cells, bacteria, viruses. Yes, collaboration is one of the key processes in nature. That collaboration arose in the process of evolution. Apparently it was a better way of organizing than the other options we had. Other organisms are much older. Now humans are here. I sometimes feel that we want to be at the top and to be able to engineer humankind. You see it with the virus, 'We're going to wipe it out.' Is that even possible? If we really want to, it's possible. It's hard with a virus. It's much easier to wipe out pandas or rhinos or tigers. Viruses are so closely linked to us that they keep adapting and evolving. The flu virus is a good example. For the flu jabs we have now, we have to guess what flu virus is coming but it's often quite different. After so many centuries we still can't predict what it will do. Viruses are often too fast for us. Viruses survive because they mutate. That's why it's so hard to develop a vaccine or medicine or a treatment. You don't know which direction it will go. You see that with flu vaccines. You think: Hey, it works. But next time, it's changed again.”
“When the Outbreak Management Team (OMT) was set up I was surprised that they spoke very little about public health. It was all about virologists. That makes sense because it's a virus, I get that. But public health is about much more than just a virus. There's much more to ensuring we're healthy. There are the lifestyle diseases and so on. The other strange thing was the social and economic side. As an entrepreneur I knew that what was said would have a big impact. That wasn't mentioned. Then it transpired that the other experts weren't in the OMT. That was so strange. That's when I started searching for information myself. Eventually we were doing research with 20 scientists in four countries. It was great, we got so much information. Everyone had their own task. We had data scientists, people looking at economics, accountants, there were doctors among the scientists and economists. It was amazing. In just eight weeks we got a clear picture of what was going on. The big question for me was: What actually happens? What does the virus do to the body?”
“There are various different aspects of the immune system you have to look at... T-cells play a huge role. They cause a kind of cross-reaction that originates in previous coronavirus infections. Because there are a large number of these viruses that are all slightly different. That's what the immunity is built on. The T-cell recognizes parts of the coronavirus... That means that other people who have never seen the new variant can still demonstrate defense based on that. That turned out to be 40-60%, based on T-cells. It was interesting that on the news only immunoglobulin was mentioned, which is made by B-cells that are measured in the blood.”
“This is essentially almost a classic immunity built up against viruses, the kind we see all the time. The whole world pursued more or less the same policy. There were two reasons for this. First, the WHO. There's a lot of pharma money in the WHO, so they're not impartial. The same happened in 2009. They decide what the status of a virus is. Back then they classified swine flu as Pandemic A: life-threatening. It proved not to be, but many vaccines were produced and they were all sold. There was uproar about that, because in hindsight it was all wrong. That wasn't how things were. It was just pharma money pulling the strings. We don't seem to have learned anything, as it's happening again now. The strange thing is that the rules for that have been adapted. Looking back, as our citizens' initiative shows, the WHO doesn't want social distancing and lock-downs. It's in a publication from 2019. That's not the way to go. But they changed it nonetheless. Very odd. They decide the policy for 193 countries. The panic and copying each other is all a part of that too.”
“It was clear after those three weeks who the high-risk groups were: elderly people with an illness were the ones who fell ill and were hospitalized. And a very big group of healthy people, the economic workforce really weren't very much affected. Some were, but far fewer than victims of road accidents... It was clear this was about more than public health. And it's only a small part of public health. If you look at lifestyle and road traffic deaths there are many more things that affect public health. It was odd that we didn't look at the social and economic aspects too. Because imposing lock-downs like this has quite an impact on your economy. Why aren't these experts being consulted?”
“The crazy thing was that the newspaper said that the T-cells need to be jump-started by the vaccine. I thought: this is too much. So it's not important if we have natural T-cells, but if we make a vaccine it has to encourage the T-cells to become active? I'm at a complete loss.”
“The pharmaceutical industry makes an enormous profit on its products. If that benefited people's health, you'd say: fair enough, who cares. But there are increasing signs that medicines play a key role in the falling life expectancy in the United States and stagnating life expectancy in the European Union. We've seen big scandals around Vioxx, Rofecoxib, a simple painkiller, the medication for diabetes: rosiglitazone, Avandia. Countless medications have cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives. It just keeps on going. You would think that after all of those tragedies the rules would be tightened. They're not, in fact they're being relaxed.
So pharma is a great business model... it's largely due to patents... They've made agreements with the registration authorities about the requirements they have to meet. These days, the European Medicines Agency or EMA in Amsterdam, the Food and Drug Administration or FDA in America say very clearly on their websites that they want to help manufacturers to bring their product onto the market. That's a very strange situation. You would expect organizations like this to put the citizens first. To only approve medicines that have been proven to work and that have the fewest possible side effects... A company called Gilead, the company that also put sofosbuvir, Sovaldi for the treatment of Hepatitis C on the market... production costs: 150 euros. A course of treatment costs 80,000 euros. Those are the kinds of companies and people we're dealing with.
If you look at our overreaction, we've seen that COVID-19 causes a reaction mostly in people with weaker immune systems. Worldwide the people who die have an average age of 80, 80.5 with a lot of underlying conditions. Is that comparable with a bad case of flu? It is, in fact. The people who die in yearly flu outbreaks are mainly elderly with co-morbidity, in other words other illnesses, and who use other medicines, or co-medication. That has been the case with flu for years. The people who die are mainly residents of nursing homes. And it's the same with this illness, this coronavirus pandemic.”
“AstraZeneca is a company like so many others actually, like GlaxoSmithKline, that are regularly linked to serious fraud, especially scientific fraud... Another thing I noticed during my research is that these pharmaceutical companies have an incredible marketing apparatus... their representatives visit doctors. They're very good at it. The pharmaceutical industry is extremely powerful. They have a lot of power and money and because of that they're able to promote and market their new treatments very effectively. And it works. It really works. Otherwise they wouldn't keep doing it. Doctors are susceptible to marketing. Often they don't have expert knowledge, they can't assess the research and they rely on what they're told by medical sales representatives and medical opinion leaders... In fact when I was still practicing I was told by the medical sales reps that they were assessed on whether the number of prescriptions of their new drug increased in their region. As well as that there are doctors, specialists who are instructed or employed by the pharmaceutical industry: medical opinion leaders or MOL's who are actively engaged in prescribing the new medications and to market them. That works well. It works well in politics, as there are no experts at the Ministry of Health or the House of Representatives. So they can do as they please.”
“Over the past months the media have headed in a very specific direction. We're being told news in a very one-sided way. And I think the media have a pretty big role given the situation we're in. And that they have a lot of influence on how people feel at the moment... If you're the editor-in-chief of a major newspaper and you say: 'Due to the pandemic and the government's position, I'm siding with them', that's just state television, you're a state newspaper. In a crisis, especially, you should check what's going on... They sow a policy of fear and say: we're all scared, so just do as we say.”
“Look at the media, they should be critical, that's their job. But they're the helpers. Is that not a bit strange? That's what is so disappointing, it's now very clear we no longer have critical media... We, the vast majority, the ordinary citizens, are not represented. There's no lobby for us. Society needs its own lobby. That's very important, otherwise everything will go to the other lobbies. But we don't have one. That's the nice thing about the term 'media': it suggests intermediation... You want to know what's going on in the world, for when you vote and to join in the chat at the pub. You need intermediaries for that, and the intermediaries are the media. The quality of a democracy depends a lot on the quality of the intermediaries. They need to be well-informed people who have in-depth knowledge... someone who has really done the research and asks critical, probing questions. That has disappeared... the media should be especially critical during a crisis. They should be asking whether we are making the right decisions...
To my mind, there's always a triangle: it consists of the cartels, clearly defined and with a clear agenda, and the political decision-makers, and the helpers. Political decision-makers are supposed to represent the public interest. But that's not how the game plays out. Politicians work best in the grey zone... you can keep your options open. That's one factor. The other is the lack of rational thinking. We always assumed that in politics and economics, for example, the decisions made are rational. But most political decisions are irrational... Citizens are better informed now. There's a lot of know-how in society, more than in the cabinet itself... it sounds as if they're talking to pre-schoolers. That's how it came across to me. And it was all about fear, fear, fear... As far as I know, only regimes do that, dictators... it's understandable given the third leg of the triangle. Cartels have the biggest interest, politicians muddle along, and then there are the helpers, the assistants. Those are the think-tanks, the lobbyists. Politics is driven mainly by lobbyists. There's huge pressure on politicians. That's why it's such a corrupt game. All the stakeholders except the public know how to exert influence on them. And the key helpers in this case especially have been the media. Helpers are needed because decisions are made not in the interests of the vast majority but of the small minority. They give a justification.”
“Ultimately, taking into account everything that's going on here you might wonder: is this really about public health? It's wonderful to be able to help your children grow. You can only do it if they accept it, if they're okay with it... The nice thing is that it works because you've set it up based on trust. That linked in well with what happened around coronavirus. Politicians should trust society, the way we do: I trust my team and I trust people's autonomy. They know what they need to do, they like working that way. That's how you achieve success. But strangely, the government did the opposite: no trust, no autonomy, restricting freedom... It's fantastic that my family is giving me the scope to share what we all know with society, to tell people about it, to say: 'Guys, there's another way.' Why is it our policy that the only hope is a vaccine? In that case there are other powers at play...
I think the coronavirus is just one part of an action that has now been set in motion that really just pulls the strings tighter from the position of those who are in power at the moment and who want to retain that power whatever the cost and who have certain ideas about what to do with that power, who have a vision of humanity and the future of humanity which they want to bring about in reality. A few people are going to determine our future effectively taking away our right to self-determination. Effectively leading us towards a goal set by them with no regard for us. So our autonomy, coronavirus is being used for that.”
“I want to leave behind the idea that the state looks after us. The state has no money. We do that. The state's money is our tax money. When they say the government will help to pay for any claims that may arise from the vaccinations... there's now a guarantee that the government will pay the claims. It's our money. So we're paying for any claims. And that means that the pharmaceutical industry is fully exempt... Since the swine flu in 2009 they've been earning more than any other industry. But again, it's not about that. They already have a colossal amount of money. You simply can't imagine how much money is available at the highest level. It's not about that; it's about the distribution. It's about it NOT being distributed. It's actually about the real economy being bled dry. If you look at the purchasing power of the average person in recent years it has decreased dramatically. Why? Because wages are barely rising, benefits are barely rising, pensions aren't rising, they've been frozen. But costs are going up: housing costs, energy costs, health care costs. It's all going up and up and up. So the pressure on citizens is growing and growing, and the means to live a reasonable life under that pressure are constantly shrinking. There must already be an awful lot of households that can only afford the bare necessities... The people with political power don't have that problem. For now, they still get enough out of the tax trough to afford a good lifestyle. So they don't understand the problem, or don't want to, or ignore it...
We need to get rid of this system. This financial system took shape over three centuries ago. It was set up in the interests of the ruling class. It was set up as a system to make money available for the kings and the nobility so that they could finance their operations and finance their lifestyle. It was never actually meant for the people. The people were the ones who had to pay off the debts incurred by the king and the nobility. We need to get out of this system and move to a different one. Because the system we're in now is simply not good for us. It's a destructive financial system.”
“We can see all around us that these are very big companies earning so much money that it's more than individual countries earn... corporate states. At the end of the industrial age and the start of the digital age capitalism continued, that's how the new technologies were built. The really big tech companies are so big, they're becoming so powerful they're more powerful than countries. For a very long time our society was set up in such a way that rules were made by society, politicians, countries. They made laws, and businesses had to adapt to the laws to operate there. That only works if countries are more powerful than companies. I call them 'corporate states' because they're bigger and more powerful than most countries. Countries like the Netherlands, Belgium or France have become relatively too small to hold their own against those big companies. Corporate states behave like states. They have their own rules and conditions. They decide where to go, whether to pay tax. They're deciding more and more. And countries have to adapt to what corporate states see as their interests. Those are still partly capitalist.”
“The good news in all this is that the technology we're talking about, digital technology, biotech, a number of technological developments... blockchains, artificial intelligence, they can make the elite more powerful but they can also empower the citizens. The technology is neutral, it depends on how we use it. We can use technology to create a decentralized, local economy. With solar panels and wind we can generate our own energy. We don't need companies for that, local societies can do it together. There are robots to make strawberries and tomatoes; you can automate vegetable and fruit production. We're developing cultured meat, all kinds of technologies that make it possible for local communities to function without the need for the big companies. The question is: will it go that way? Or will our generations have to work even harder due to the coronavirus debt? We have to change the economic model. That's the old industrial model: you work, get paid, provide a service. Well-being is financed by that model. That industrial model will be replaced by a whole new economic model in which we're less dependent on those kinds of parties...
In the past companies were located in a country. The big issues and companies are no longer in a country. It's all global. The world is their playing field and many big issues are global issues. They used to be national issues. The climate is a global issue... health care is a global issue. More and more issues now cross over borders onto the world stage. But there's no democracy on the world stage. The big companies aren't democracies. Nongovernmental organizations act as the public bodies looking after the environment, health and education. But they're not democracies either.”
“I've seen in this research that the people who made the decisions, and that wasn't 193 countries, it was a few people in the WHO and some important virologists around important politicians. Mr Drosten, a virologist who invented the PCR test, he has shares in his own company so he has a strong interest in this. Fauci too has a big interest in pharma in America. Ferguson in England and Ab Osterhaus in the Netherlands have a big interest. I don't understand why, when we seek advice about public health, our health, these are the kinds of people that are chosen to tell us what we should do. If you scare people enough, they can't think straight. This experiment in fear has been going on... it will be a big problem trying to reverse that in due course. It's not going to be easy... they're doing it again in this second wave: fear, panic, a kind of experiment...
During our research an article came in from The Lancet. The Lancet is a leading scientific journal. In it, they drew the same conclusion that we drew: that it's a syndemic. Of course, that needs a bit of explaining. A syndemic means that you have two conditions at the same time. In this case we had the virus, of course: COVID-19. It turned out that in addition, the people who were vulnerable all had underlying conditions. We know now what they are. They can be cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes. So mainly lifestyle diseases... if you have both those things at the same time it's called a syndemic. In some cases they can exacerbate each other. And that's when the problems start. So what we're dealing with is a syndemic.”
“We have to realize that a lot of things are going to become uncertain. A lot will change, and the virus is actually the least of the problems. We're in transition and the politics of the old age doesn't work in the new age. Major players are making use of this period to safeguard their interests. There is polarization and tension in society, it's not one big civic movement. If we want to get through this to a new period and get out of the fear we need to decide to do it together, to help each other and overcome our differences and create a better society. If we don't take that decision to create a better society, to unite citizens, we'll create scope for parties that want to exploit the uncertain period and the tensions that arise. It's up to citizens to decide to step up, to unite so we can make something good. If not, there are powerful forces at work that will take the opportunity to exploit things... We must make that choice, not let others make it for us.”
