Original subtitles

We've had to cope with radical measures for two years now.

They have limited our freedom drastically.

We've been going from lockdown to lockdown.

It's supposedly necessary to protect public heath...

against an extremely dangerous virus, but is this actually true?

Is coronavirus really as dangerous as it is made out to be?

Are the measures really effective?

Is vaccinating the entire population wise or are there also risks involved?

If the measures don't contribute to public health...

why are they being taken anyway?

The side effects are very rare and it's very effective.

The Netherlands is going into lockdown.

The current mass vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is a colossal mistake.

If I disclose what I know, it will cost me everything.

I won't be able to continue my research, I'll get no more grants. I'll be finished.

I can't look myself in the mirror if I don't come forward with what I know.

I can't live with that.

They say: 'Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.'

In my case that's definitely true...

because a few years ago I had no plans to go into politics.

But I was so concerned about the developments taking place around me...

that I felt I had to personally take action.

The House of Representatives is the place to be in Dutch politics.

The last few years, I've seen that so many lies are being told...

that great injustice is being done, and people are being affected deeply.

They come up to me with tears in their eyes.

Fundamental rights are being illegally curbed, people robbed of their freedom.

People are losing everything they worked for.

They are uncertain about their future.

That's what motivates me the most to continue that battle every day again.

On 1 July 2021, the then Minister of Health told me...

that raising doubts about vaccinations as a way out of the crisis...

would be a danger to public health. That's what he literally said.

While my opinion that a vaccine would never get us out of the crisis...

was not only my opinion, but also that of many professors...

scientists and other experts.

People who are much more qualified than the Minister of Health...

and are specialised in relevant fields, like virology or immunology.

It's a disgrace to call the opinions prevalent among so many experts...

a danger to public health. An apology would therefore be in order.

In the House of Representatives I often feel like a voice in the wilderness.

Because during debates about, for example, the coronavirus policy...

it seems like I'm the only one asking the questions most Dutch people have.

The other Members of Parliament ignore these questions.

All they talk about is the tone and the form.

They think certain things shouldn't be said, or said differently.

For the first time since WWII we have a government...

that is drafting legislation that creates a state of apartheid.

One that excludes people from society.

And it's vital not to give in to tyranny.

And we won't give in to tyranny.

If regulations are created that discriminate against entire population groups...

I urge the population not to obey.

Obeying them is a greater crime than disobeying them.

The atrocities that were inflicted on the Jews during WWII...

were committed by people that were obedient, not disobedient.

Thank you. Mr van Meijeren, as chair I would like to say something.

You use big words and compare things to WWII again.

I must say that I find that inappropriate. My other colleagues have something...

What eventually triggered me...

to expose the truth to the public about the lies that were being told...

was when I noticed that opinions not shared by the government...

were being censored on a large scale.

Before every debate about coronavirus we would receive an extensive letter.

A 20- to 40-page letter with appendices referring to kinds of expert reports.

That's all that most parliamentarians have to work with.

It's important to realise that the OMT, the Outbreak Management Team...

is part of the RIVM, which falls under the purview of the Ministry of Health.

So under no circumstance is there real impartiality.

And furthermore, there are countless experts...

doctors, virologists, immunologists, scientists...

and even Nobel Prize winners, nationally and internationally...

that have totally different opinions based on solid arguments.

Respected people who know what they are talking about.

Those opinions are not allowed to be heard in the House or in the media.

Those voices get demonised, ridiculed and censored.

In my opinion, it is of the utmost importance...

to have a balanced debate where all the different opinions are heard.

That's the foundation of a democracy.

Conflicting opinions are needed to reveal the truth.

That's why I've decided to ask questions based on the input and information...

that I received from all those other experts.

A whole set of parliamentary questions based on that information.

To expose the controversies and show that there are other opinions.

It frustrates me that these questions remain unanswered.

We have appealed to the Ministry to get those answers...

but we're being completely ignored.

The fundamental right to information becomes meaningless this way.

Because I can't do my job properly if I don't get answers to questions.

My most important job is monitoring the government.

The members of government have to be able to be held accountable.

And if this does not happen, it leads to a situation...

where a small group of people have a great deal of power...

but aren't held accountable. That's a very dangerous combination.

Last October I asked 60 parliamentary questions about the coronavirus policy.

The questions were about the scientific foundation...

the experimental nature of the vaccines...

and the long-term side effects that have not been studied.

But also about the use of the QR code...

and the social disruption and polarisation that it has caused.

As the Ministry has refused for months to answer my questions...

I started my own quest in which I've spoken to many experts.

Such as Geert vanden Bossche, who has a PhD in virology.

He has done scientific research for many years for numerous companies...

into the effects of vaccines.

I've gained this experience with real events...

during the Ebola epidemic a few years ago in West Africa.

This felt like a calling to me...

because this was such an important phenomenon...

that required expertise in virology, immunology and vaccinology.

When it became clear they wanted to vaccinate people on a huge scale...

I immediately started analysing the situation.

I tried several times to discuss this with experts.

I also talked to endowed Professor Theo Schetters.

He has a PhD in medicine and is an expert on vaccination development.

What is his opinion on the policy?

I was surprised and astonished when in March of last year....

Minister de Jonge said that vaccinations were the only way out of the crisis.

That was strange because with a crisis I would expect to have a meeting...

to discuss how to deal with the crisis and what the various options are.

That discussion never took place. And they only looked at vaccines.

But a sickness comes with being sick. That means it's too late to vaccinate.

You would also expect that they would look at ways to treat patients...

or to prevent the sickness after they are infected with coronavirus.

Carla Peeters has a PhD in immunology.

She worked for years for the RIVM battling infectious diseases.

How does she look at the vaccination policy and the role of the RIVM?

It's striking that politics has taken over the role of medical science.

That endangers public health.

If politics takes over their role, then what is the purpose of medical science?

That's hard. It's also reflected in the media.

The media push certain studies to the forefront...

which makes you wonder: Why are these in the media now?

That's also striking. I'm really concerned about that.

The researchers have the best intentions...

but it raises questions about impartiality and the transparency of matters...

when you have a different opinion and are in a position of dependency.

There are two types of vaccines being used in the Netherlands.

The mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna...

and the vector vaccines made by AstraZeneca and Janssen.

Can you tell me what kind of vaccines they are...

and how they're different from the traditional vaccines?

Traditional vaccines make use of the protein itself...

that you want to have an immune response to.

There are various ways to do this. You can grow lots of the virus...

containing that protein and deactivate it, so the virus can't multiply.

You can use that in a vaccine and inject it to create an antibody response.

The genetic vaccines utilise the code for the protein.

And then your body itself has to produce that protein.

And that's an option that you should question.

The cell synthesises the protein, but for how long is the question.

Which particular cells do this?

And how long does a synthesised protein stay in the body?

This is the biggest problem that's been insufficiently researched...

during the various tests that have taken place.

It wasn't until after the approval that we were able to determine...

which cells in which organs can synthesise this protein.

And for how long this is expressed, as we call it, in the body.

And in which organs this is possible, for example.

And this is problematic from a purely vaccinological perspective...

because they actually want to prevent...

showing the protein for a long period to the immune system.

Exposing the immune system for a long time to a protein is a bad idea.

To what degree have these vaccines gone through the tests and trials...

that apply to the other vaccines in the government vaccination programme?

These are different vaccines, so you would expect other studies.

The trial runs that have taken place were much shorter than usual.

Animal studies were conducted...

but some of them took place later or didn't take place at all.

For example, when I asked where the S protein goes when injected:

Does it stay in the arm or does it go to the organs?

An experiment Pfizer had to do at the request of Japan showed...

that it can end up in the organs. This wasn't made public.

The public was told that it stays in the arm and dissolves rapidly.

It seems that the spike protein was an unfortunate choice.

The spike protein turned out to be a biotoxin.

That means when you have active spike proteins...

it activate all kinds of unwanted processes in your own body.

Especially when the spike protein is produced in your body...

it's not inactive, it's biologically active.

The possible consequences are numerous.

When spike proteins are produced in large numbers in a cell....

it's been proven that it interferes with genetic processes in the cell's nucleus.

They said that it could interfere with DNA repair mechanisms.

That's problematic, as DNA repair is used to prevent mistakes in your DNA.

That could cause tumour cells, for example.

This is a dangerous possibility that hasn't been sufficiently researched.

They've worked with RNA gene therapy in the past...

but never on this scale and it has never been put on the market so fast.

Pfizer is now being asked questions by the medical community and scientists.

It turns out that during the first 90 days of the trial, people died...

and suffered more severe side effects than was made public.

We're dealing with a new vaccine that was developed in a short time...

and released on the market only conditionally.

It was also made with a new technology that could cause great complications.

Are there any serious side effects or is it really not that bad?

With the genetic vaccines especially, we're seeing a number of side effects...

that occur at an alarming rate...

like myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle.

But also side effects, like the onset of thrombosis in various organs.

This can happen in various organs, because we can't control...

in which tissue these proteins are expressed.

We can't control how long these proteins are expressed.

The location and duration are unknown factors.

It's also very unpredictable in whom these proteins are expressed.

It's clear that some people don't have any side effects at all...

and for some people they can even have fatal consequences.

And that we now know with Moderna, that people under the age of 40...

have a bigger chance of getting myocarditis than COVID-19.

We know that some countries have stopped using Moderna for that age group.

But in the Netherlands nothing has been changed yet.

They even had campaigns called: Dancing with Janssen.

It's fun here. It feels like an event. A warming-up for the summer festivals.

There was a case where a young man died after an mRNA vaccination.

The autopsy showed that he had damaged muscle cells...

without an inflammation infiltrate.

That indicates that the muscle cell broke down by itself.

And not because there had been an inflammation around it.

We're getting these kinds of signs that make you realise:

It's dangerous and the consequences are unpredictable.

And in the real world we're getting indications that it's not all right.

Official figures show that 85% of adults have been fully vaccinated by now.

The reality is totally different than what was initially presented to us.

How do you explain that? -That already raises questions for me.

How big is the crisis actually in terms of the virus?

If only 98.5% of the population won't end up in hospital when infected...

and only 0.3% ends up in intensive care, you have to wonder...

whether we even have an epidemic crisis.

The average age of people who die due to coronavirus...

is almost 80 for men and 84 for women.

That's higher than the average life expectancy in the Netherlands.

Is there even reason for concern? -No, there isn't at all, in my opinion.

I mentioned this in an interview, and got my wrist slapped...

that I don't see the necessity for vaccinations...

because you have to keep focused on where the problem is.

The problem lies with people over 60 with a high BMI and the elderly.

Most people are much younger than sixty.

The government policy is focused on vaccinating as many people as possible.

Including healthy people and even healthy children.

What are your thoughts? -With every medical procedure...

you have to weigh the costs against the benefits of the treatment.

There are no benefits for healthy people because they are healthy to begin with.

Then only the costs remain and that's the risk of side effects.

That balance quickly moves in the wrong direction.

When you look at the age group from five years old to twenty...

no one in that group has died due to coronavirus since the crisis began.

So for that group there aren't any benefits at all.

The opinions in this class are mixed. Not everyone wants to get a shot.

NOS Stories investigated this.

They asked a few thousand youngsters if they wanted to be vaccinated.

74% answered yes. 13% answered no.

And 13% aren't sure.

There may only be a one in 50,000 chance of getting myocarditis...

but since there are no benefits, that risk is unacceptable.

And people must not underestimate that, however small the odds may seem.

That's two in every 100,000 and 20 in every million people.

With two million children that means we're giving myocarditis to 40 children.

Not to mention the possible residual damage.

We have no idea of its effects when the children are 50 or 60.

How will it affect their heart?

Children are born with a large amount of natural antibodies.

That's why children are fully protected against the coronavirus.

They can get sick, but only very, very rarely seriously sick.

You could say the children get sick, even if it's only a little sick...

but let's vaccinate them anyway because that can do no harm.

It can do harm, because the antibodies the child will get from the vaccination...

will compete with the innate antibodies.

So you're going to make children trade in their innate antibodies...

that are very effective and can handle every variant...

for inferior vaccinal antibodies.

In other words, we can expect that when we vaccinate the children...

they won't just lose their protection against SARS-CoV-2...

but moreover, they will be more prone to other viral infections.

I want to use this opportunity to mention pregnant people.

People are quick to say: 'Don't worry, it's all safe.'

Firstly, we started vaccinating in the Netherlands on 6 January.

The first vaccinated women have probably given birth around this time.

We currently have no idea how many pregnancies have been aborted.

That hasn't been looked into yet.

Compare that to saying to a woman: 'You shouldn't drink a glass of wine.'

But on the other hand, it's fine to give them a vaccination...

that has unknown side effects and is only conditionally approved.

I think it's a strange stance to take regarding pregnant women.

My advice to pregnant women is: Take care of yourself.

Take care of your baby. But don't get vaccinated.

Can I get vaccinated if I'm pregnant? -Certainly.

Getting vaccinated has no effect on your pregnancy.

To what extent does vaccinating healthy people and children...

prevent the virus from spreading?

Tests have been done in which they compared breakthrough infections...

that's when a vaccinated person gets coronavirus anyway.

They actually adjusted the PCR test to measure how much virus it contained.

The amount of virus shed by vaccinated people who got sick...

and by unvaccinated sick people was the same.

That's exactly the reason why the whole 2G situation was put on ice.

It's useless, because the vaccines no longer reduce the transmission.

The effectiveness of the vaccines is lower than expected.

That was revealed in the first scientific studies.

That's partially due to the breakthrough infections.

We also know that it's not feasible to pursue a zero-COVID policy...

because COVID viruses mutate rapidly.

It's an illusion to think that it can be eradicated.

Didn't they know 18 months ago that coronaviruses keep mutating?

Yes, that was known.

They are well aware that these vaccines aren't capable...

aren't capable at all of limiting the transmission of the virus.

This goes completely against the initial expectations.

At first, they had expectations...

that the vaccines would limit the transmission of the virus.

This assumption is totally wrong.

When you choose to be vaccinated, you protect yourself and each other.

And when we look around, we see the other reasons to do it.

The vaccines being used were developed based on the original Wuhan variant.

And now they want everyone to get a booster shot against Omicron.

But the booster injection is exactly the same as the first two shots.

How useful is it to make people get a booster shot...

against a new variant, like the Omicron variant?

First of all, you have to prove that Omicron is a problem.

What's the deal with the virulence?

In most cases, people get a runny nose and that's it.

But then in the Netherlands we get a press conference where they say:

'We don't know if this will be severe, but as a precaution...

we're going to enforce the heaviest lockdown so far.'

As of tomorrow, the Netherlands is going into lockdown again.

The Netherlands will lock down again.

This is inevitable due to the fifth wave with the Omicron variant.

I think it's a strange strategy.

And I think it's strange that after two vaccinations...

the antibodies decrease much faster than after natural immunity...

and that people get new infections.

That means something happens to the immune system.

Because people aged under forty that have received two vaccinations...

it turns out that the Omicron variant appears more frequently.

The so-called breakthrough infection. I find that striking...

because they're young and healthy with a good immune system.

How can a new variant come about in that group?

Based on the current scientific facts booster vaccinations are irresponsible.

Especially for the elderly. They have received a third booster.

But the fatality rate remains the same as last year.

That makes me wonder about the use of these vaccinations.

And we've seen that people have become more vulnerable.

I'm really concerned about this.

We need to stop and evaluate and discontinue the booster shots.

It's strange to develop a vaccine that stops working after six months...

and then to decide it would be effective to give people more of the same.

I would say: No, that won't be effective.

The more boosters you give, the more specific the immune response becomes.

It becomes even more specific to the Wuhan strain.

And therefore less effective against variations of that strain.

By vaccinating the entire population...

we're going to take the innate immunity that healthy people possess...

and partially supress it in exchange for a specific immunity...

where there is an increasing resistance to the vaccinal antibodies.

This has disadvantages for individual and public health.

Firstly, the vaccinated people are less well protected.

And considering that innate immunity is an important part of group immunity...

and is able to eradicate the virus, it will be completely lost to us...

if we substitute innate antibodies with vaccinal antibodies.

That's why it's my recommendation not to vaccinate...

healthy people with an innate immunity that can be trained.

And especially not children, because their innate antibodies...

will be severely suppressed by the vaccinal antibodies.

Many people wonder: It was developed so fast, can it be right?

We explain to them that it's because so much effort was put into it.

No corners were cut and it meets all the safety requirements.

And young and healthy people wonder why they should get a vaccination.

We tell them: You don't take it just for yourself, but for each other.

That's how we try to eliminate questions and doubts.

How do you explain the government's adamant claim...

that the vaccination is safe without offering any nuance in this?

I don't get that. And I don't understand...

that the information that is known about VAERS from EudraVigilance...

when compared with other vaccines, we see there are far more side effects...

and far more fatalities than for the vaccines brought to market earlier.

While other vaccines with 53 fatalities were taken off the market.

I don't understand why it's being implemented like this.

We know that 350 athletes have had to quit their profession...

have been side-lined temporarily and a few have even died.

The athletes are exploring a possible link with the vaccination.

It's exceptionally strange that immune systems of top athletes...

aren't able to deal with inflammations, like pericarditis and myocarditis.

That means the immune system can no longer keep the body in balance.

Something is happening. And that's what concerns me.

The vaccines might be weakening the immune system.

To wonder why that is happening is pure speculation, because I don't know.

Those vaccines contain something that makes these cases unusual.

Since August, Statistics Netherlands has been reporting excess deaths.

Last week 1,200 more people died than they had expected.

You might think it's due to coronavirus, but it's not.

Only 350 people died of coronavirus.

That leaves almost 900 people who died of something else.

We don't know why, because we're not getting the data we need to find out.

For example, recently Ernst Kuipers was asked during a House committee:

'Have the people that are currently in the IC units been vaccinated or not?'

Mr Kuipers responded: 'Those figures won't tell you anything.'

I can give you the figures per region or per hospital, but it means nothing.

I would love to get the figures per hospital.

That would require much effort and in the end it would be useless.

Firstly, I will decide if the figures are useless to me or not.

And with all due respect, I think I can do more with the figures than Mr Kuipers.

I think there should be more transparency about the data.

Look, I'm not asking for myself. I'm asking this for the Dutch people...

who have become sick due to coronavirus...

or are suffering from the negative side effects caused by the treatment.

I think that information is so important that it shouldn't be waved away with:

'Those figures are no use to you.'

Independent experts with a different opinion than those...

working for the government are opposed, censored or even silenced.

While there are so many valid questions regarding the coronavirus policy.

Is there even room for a genuine scientific debate?

Since the Dutch coronavirus crisis started scientific debates have been blocked.

I now get criticism from fact checkers instead of from fellow scientists.

Fact checkers are used nowadays and they lack any scientific knowledge.

We have to deal with them, while we would prefer to hear...

from our colleagues. Tell me that I'm wrong.

Explain the mistake in my reasoning, but that's not what's happening.

I always say: Don't leave any stone unturned.

If I don't understand a question, I will not rest until I find the answer.

With such a complex phenomenon you can't leave anything unanswered.

I can say with confidence that I'm not afraid to have a debate with any expert.

But I can tell you this, all those experts are afraid to have a debate with me.

Because they misunderstood the pandemic.

As a result, the entire vaccination policy from start to finish...

has been entirely wrong from start to finish.

We have gained nothing since its start.

Absolutely nothing. We've only made the situation worse.

Luckily Omicron is resistant, but it's very infectious.

With our innate immunity we can deal with every infectious variant.

We have a chance to get this under control...

if we get rid of the current policy and change it radically.

This is purely a reflection of the prevailing panic...

incompetence, ignorance and the stubbornness.

The stupidity of not talking to people with a different opinion.

The arrogance of moving forwards despite the ignorance.

And the stubbornness of not admitting that they could've made a mistake.

They are in power at the top and they can't be reached.

They dictate what happens and the people have to accept it.

That's stands in complete opposition to all the known science.

I must be honest and say that I consider this a crime.

And this coming from a scientist who doesn't like to express himself this way.

I've noticed that people are saying:

'If I disclose what I know, it will cost me my career.

I can forget about my research. I won't get grants. My career will be over.'

That's sad, but that's the current atmosphere.

And then comes the question: 'Why did you decide to come forward?'

I didn't choose to do this. Last year, I saw to my amazement...

that Pfizer's mRNA file was up for review at the EMA.

And that it was accepted without a hiccup.

But I realised that this technology is not good, this won't work.

They were taking such a huge risk that I couldn't sleep at night.

Everyone would deal with it differently.

But I decided to step forward and disclose what I know.

That had certain consequences.

I had no idea what those consequences would be.

But your initial question was: What was your motivation?

I just felt that I needed to do this. And I did. And now we're here.

I see that the scientists I speak to are visibly distraught by what's happening.

Even in the workplace in hospitals differing opinions are ignored.

I had a discussion with Brian de Lange, an emergency physician.

He wrote an urgent letter to parliament with fellow doctors to ring the alarm.

I asked him about his view on the policy.

Firstly, they're not willing to listen to differing opinions or analyses.

And in the meantime, various studies have now shown...

that certain measures haven't had the effects that were promised.

Things like mass vaccinations, vaccinating children...

mandatory face masks and the curfew have caused demonstrable damage...

with only minor or no benefit at all to public health.

A debate about this is not allowed.

And that's probably the worst thing of these last two years.

What stood out in your urgent letter was that you wrote...

that measures are being taken that are ineffectual and not based on science.

Can you expand on that?

When you take measures as a government...

or as the OMT, an advisory body, you need a thorough substantiation.

And when you read the OMT's advice the scientific basis is very poor.

And they never check afterwards whether the predictions were true or not.

For example, the mandatory face mask.

You can't make a solid case that wearing a face mask leads to...

significantly fewer hospital admissions, IC admissions or deaths.

And now there's a debate regarding the QR codes.

It's easy to predict that such a measure won't prevent...

a person with a QR code from infecting someone else.

That's why these measures are ineffective.

The cabinet claims that the hospitals don't have enough capacity...

and might have to enforce Code Black.

It may not be proven beyond a doubt that the measures are effective...

but with half the information we have to take all the decisions.

Last week's predictions were that we would have 50 to 70 patients a day.

That means I will have to enforce Code Black in ten days.

It's possible that they had to make decisions based on limited information.

You do need to reassess though. This was possible in April or May 2020.

That this didn't happen is careless.

The advice that the OMT gave in January 2020...

was that they expected coronavirus to have a fatality rate of 2 or 3 percent or more.

This turned out not to be true. It was much lower than that.

They assumed that everyone could be affected, which wasn't true either.

It was mainly the elderly.

That's one of the reasons that we wrote the urgent letter.

We wrote that we wanted to talk to the Ministry and Minister Kuipers...

but we're being completely ignored.

That's baffling and unheard of because you must be able to exchange thoughts.

Medicine isn't black and white.

They're pretending there's one truth, but that's not the case.

You just said that the measures that have been taken are ineffective.

What should the cabinet do instead?

It's important to take away the fear that was initially created.

This could've been done in late April.

Most people won't get sick. Jaap van Dissel said this various times.

And the expected fatality rate of 2-3% turned out to be only 0.15%

Secondly, which I find incomprehensible is that they didn't examine...

how to prevent people who are sick from ending up in the hospital.

At first, various studies were done all around the world...

and doctors tried out various drugs.

Instead of embracing that idea it was pushed aside.

That it's forbidden and that you can get fined is inconceivable.

Thirdly, why have there been so many cutbacks in healthcare the last decade?

There are fewer hospitals now.

There are far fewer IC units, down by 20%.

If this is public knowledge, you should do everything you can...

to raise the capacity, but that didn't happen.

And we can now conclude that if we had raised the capacity...

we wouldn't be in lockdowns anymore.

And we wouldn't have reacted so frantically to models...

that have proven to be incorrect time and time again.

When renowned scientists and physicians can explain so clearly...

that the current policy is not in the interest of public health...

then why do so many people still go along with the coronavirus narrative?

I asked Mattias Desmet, Professor of Clinical Psychology at Ghent University.

He is an expert on the mass formation phenomenon and totalitarianism.

During the first week of the lockdown in Belgium I published an article called:

'The fear of the virus is more dangerous than the virus itself.'

I felt that I had to speak up now or forever hold my peace.

I obtained a Master in Statistics in that period.

That trained me to see the issues with figures, statistics, graphs and models.

The first months I studied the statistics, like the mortality rate of the virus...

the infection and case fatality rate...

the mathematical models used to predict the course of the pandemic.

I studied them and in late May 2020 I came to the conclusion...

that most of the statistical estimates regarding the mortality of the virus...

were much too high. They severely overestimated the danger of the virus.

Then I started to look at it from a psychological perspective.

I wondered how an entire population could go along with a story...

and be oblivious to the fact that there's reason to doubt the story.

In the Netherlands we clearly see numerous inconsistencies....

and figures that have clearly been manipulated.

How do you explain that such a large part of the population...

keeps having blind faith in information provided by the government...

and isn't open to other opinions...

and not willing to listen to the voice of reason?

It's remarkable that the experts involved in compiling the figures and models...

don't realise themselves that they're using the figures wrong.

That made me come up with my theory about mass formation in August 2020.

Mass formation is a phenomenon that occurs under specific conditions.

A lack of social cohesion in a society is the most important condition...

for mass formation, which was the case before the coronavirus crisis.

The alienation and isolation rates have been rising a few hundred years.

The second condition is a lack of meaning in life.

It's linked to the first. Isolated people will feel that their life has little meaning.

The third condition is a lot of free-floating anxiety.

That is fear that's not linked to anything.

When you're afraid of dogs, you know what you fear.

But there's also a fear that is not connected to a specific representation.

People then look for something to connect their anxiety to.

Free-floating anxiety mainly occurs when people lack social bonds...

and meaning. People then feel disrupted.

They feel a discomfort that makes them feel anxious for unknown reasons.

The first three conditions are the cause for much frustration and aggression.

When at that time a story spreads in mass media...

that mentions an object of fear and a strategy to deal with it...

all that free-floating anxiety connects itself to that object of fear.

You can see how a society permeated with discontent and anxiety...

has the tendency to connect that anxiety to that object...

and to go along with the strategy that is handed to them.

And it leads to something else, the core of the issue.

When many people connect their anxiety to the same object...

it creates a new social cohesion and a new meaning to life.

That's the reason why people choose to go along with the narrative.

Even when it's radically absurd on certain points.

Mass formation is as old as history itself.

Like the crusades that were accompanied by mass formation.

The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in France, and the French Revolution.

In the 19th century mass formations became increasingly larger.

They led to a new government form: totalitarianism.

How do you explain that all corners of society...

from science to education and also the mass media...

follow and support this policy? And the hostile reactions...

to everyone who has the audacity to voice a different opinion?

That everyone goes along with it is the phenomenon of mass formation.

In a certain way the masses have an unlikely appeal.

Canetti describes beautifully in his book called 'Crowds and Power'...

how even on a physical plane the masses have a strange appeal.

Canetti describes that when a group of people gather in a city...

that group in a strange way attracts other people.

And how that group becomes a mass.

A phenomenon that occurs with starlings.

In the evening, starlings are drawn to each other from everywhere...

and start to move in perfect harmony.

Mass formation is considered a similar phenomenon.

It also happens in football stadiums when a temporary mass forms...

that chants and sings together.

In a strange way everyone is drawn into that same dynamic.

The individual ceases to exist.

The group sense takes over the individual sense.

Mass formation always goes hand in hand with a remarkable intolerance...

of those that don't join in with the mass...

or voice an opinion that disagrees with the mass.

The dissident opinion threatens to undo the mass formation.

People sense that if that voice isn't silenced and is tolerated...

that they will wake up from the mass formation...

and will again have to face the awful situation they were in before.

I can barely find the words for it.

It's almost criminal that they are so adamant about vaccinating people.

I find it especially irresponsible that children are getting vaccinated.

Absolutely. -Children aren't bothered by it all.

It's extremely careless to vaccinate children...

while the long-term effects are still unknown.

My work in parliament, my search for truth...

and the accompanying commotion can be very exhausting.

I'm very glad with the support I get from my environment.

And in particular from Carola, my girlfriend.

We first met during the 2017 campaign elections.

And after that we met several times at various political gatherings.

And over the last year we got to know each other much better.

The situation has changed a lot since then.

Back then I was mainly worried about mass immigration, climate policy...

the increasing transfer of power to the European Union.

The past year has all been about the freedom-restricting coronavirus policy.

I'm glad that we're both of the same mind on that topic.

And that we have similar views on what is currently taking place.

Gideon is an enormous source of support for me.

I feel that he really understands me.

And he's also a source of inspiration.

I don't know anyone who is as courageous as he is.

I think that we complement each other.

It's great to have a girlfriend with whom I can discuss everything.

We support each other through thick and thin.

That's a relief. It gives me the support and strength I need...

to continue with this important work.

The issues we're currently facing in the Netherlands...

are not comparable with the problems of a few years ago.

I talk to people on the streets that have tears in their eyes...

because they lost everything that they worked for in a very short time.

People who see that their children got vaccinated without their knowledge.

People who lost their friends. People who are getting divorced.

It's impossible to describe the suffering that's currently going on in this country.

It's of a different magnitude compared to a few years ago.

That makes me feel a great deal of responsibility...

to stand up for these people.

We want the Netherlands to be free again and have to keep fighting for that.

The consequences of the coronavirus policy were felt throughout our society.

How did the coronavirus crisis approach affect our economy?

I discussed the current state of affairs with business strategist Twan Houben.

At the start of the crisis the Netherlands was in a better economic position...

than many other European countries, as our national debt was below 60%.

That's a line drawn by the EU.

That means that the Dutch government can spend relatively more money...

than many other European countries.

Here we are again.

That means we need another substantial financial aid package.

We need to keep doing what is necessary...

to limit the damage for companies and employees.

I wonder if that is wise. I doubt it. I think it's dangerous...

because I expect an economic crisis in the second half of this year.

If you're still spending a lot of money while the interest rates are rising.

The government can spend so much because the interest rates are low.

Then you can borrow what you like.

If they rise and you've made promises to spend billions, you'll run into trouble.

I'm afraid that will happen. And here's my second point:

The Dutch national debt is relatively low, but the debt of the private sector...

the debt of citizens and companies is among the highest in Europe.

Rabobank has charts showing this.

In the EU we're at the top of the list for private debt in relation to the GDP.

That means people will suffer in the private sector.

I also asked Henk van Dalen, economist and former Rabobank supervisor...

about the state of the Dutch economy after two years of coronavirus policy.

Much has changed in the past two years.

At the end of 2019, the world had 250,000 billion euros of debt.

By the end of 2021, that was 300,000 billion.

In two years the debt increased by 50,000 billion.

This was during COVID. That's an increase of 20%.

You can look at it this way: It took us hundreds of years...

to accumulate a debt of 250,000 billion...

and in just two years we added another 50,000 billion.

I'll mention the so-called Lehman Brothers crisis in 2008.

The investment bank Lehman Brothers is for sale...

because they can't get out of the trouble they're in.

At that time, global debt was about 150,000 to 160,000 billion.

At the time, we could just barely handle that crash.

It took the global economy four to five years to recover.

So when something does happen, it won't be easy to handle.

Besides that the national debt has risen significantly...

and entrepreneurs are made totally dependent on government aid...

the lockdowns have another direct effect on the economy.

The disruption of supply chains across the globe...

are the cause of the inflation that's affecting us all at the moment.

In general, all the problems the world is currently dealing with...

like coronavirus, inflation, the debt crisis are the effects of globalisation.

Globalisation caused certain shifts in economies.

We've been outsourcing labour to low-wage countries.

And we've developed knowledge there.

We lost employment opportunities as a country and in Europe.

It seemed to go well, as prosperity seemed to be rising...

due to increased productivity and the printing of more money.

It seemed to go well, but then coronavirus broke out.

And due to coronavirus, we had lockdowns.

And due to the lockdowns, factories were shut down.

And when the lockdowns end, the factories have a delivery backlog.

They have to make up for lost time.

That's not always possible and it takes time.

Because it takes time there's a product shortage in the stores.

And when demand exceeds supply, prices rise.

The current inflation is caused by the lockdown that disrupted the supply chain...

which led to demand exceeding supply which in turn caused prices to rise.

The global network of flows of raw materials and products...

was made by small and big companies with the best intentions in the 1970s.

But we've reached a point where you have to wonder:

Hasn't it all become too complex, too extensive and too complicated?

For example, not so long ago the Evergreen blocked the Suez Canal.

As a consequence, the supply chains were disrupted for weeks, for months even.

That process is becoming tighter and tighter.

When you look at antibiotics.

90 to 95% of all antibiotics are made in China and India.

But consider how important antibiotics are for all societies.

This has led to a dependency relationship...

deliberately created by Western companies that moved their production over there.

That decision is going to come back to haunt us someday.

It seems many problems are caused by the globalisation of the last decades.

International organisations, corporate states and NGOs have gained power.

We've lost more of our independence and become more and more dependent.

In my opinion, globalisation is the cause of all of our current problems.

From the disruption of supply chains to the global approach to coronavirus.

Or things like current inflation and the ongoing housing crisis.

Not just in the Netherlands, but also in Sydney and New York. It's everywhere.

It all has to do with globalisation.

The leaders of all those multinationals decided back then:

We'll produce things more cheaply abroad.

And we'll take the jobs and expertise with us to increase our profit margins.

As a consequence, we've seen an exodus of jobs.

And capital. Many factories and machines disappeared here.

In the end this has led to lower growth in the eurozone than we would have had.

Studies show that since the introduction of the euro...

growth is on the zero line when you take Europe as a whole.

That's disappointing.

It raises questions about the tenability of our increasingly globalised society.

Have we reached the end of an era?

And how does this relate to the roll out of coronavirus policies on a global scale?

I asked Bob de Wit, Professor of Strategic Leadership...

and the author of Society 4.0.

We've become an increasingly globalising industrialised society.

We have tech companies that are bigger than nations.

The number of NGOs has increased from 400 to 40,000 in the last century.

On an international level the situation has become much more complex.

In the international playing field things are taking place...

that create friction in the way our industrial society has been designed.

International negotiations are failing, so no decisions are made.

The gap between citizens and the police is increasing.

In the transition to a new age there is always turmoil.

Since 2017, I've been expecting the start of a revolution to a new form of society.

What will this societal crisis bring forth?

And what is the role of Klaus Schwab, director of the World Economic Forum...

who advocates a Great Reset?

Schwab said that this is the moment that we need to create a new society.

The pandemic is a reason to say:

This is a moment we should embrace to create a new society.

The problem is that his proposal for a new society is on a global scale...

because all the powerful tech parties and NGOs operate on a global level.

The same goes for the UN. And they're saying: 'Let us do it.

We have the funds, the power and the UN has great ideas for SDGs.

Leave it up to us. We'll create a global government that does right.

We'll save the planet and everything will be all right.'

That means creating a top-down society based on control and management.

I have similar thoughts that we need a new form of society...

but I don't believe in a top-down society.

I think a top-down society will benefit the elite...

and the rest of the people are controlled by force.

We should create a society that's in the interest of the citizens...

and involve as many citizens as possible.

And we can use the same technologies that control people to create freedom.

When we look at the current measures, like the introduction of the QR society...

and the increasing pressure and compulsion to get vaccinated...

how do those measures relate to Klaus Schwab's Great Reset?

With a top-down society, it's key to have control and full information.

A QR code is a way to get information.

The basic idea with a top-down society is that you have to earn your citizenship.

I always use China as an example.

Communist societies are designed to be top-down societies.

Where currently 1.3 billion Chinese have a social credit score.

Everything they do, how they pay, interact online and in traffic...

is all taken into consideration, and if you do well, you get a high score.

Good citizens get passports, driving licenses, schooling and healthcare.

And if you don't do as the party says you won't get enough points.

You won't get a passport, a driving license, schooling or healthcare.

In a top-down society you have to earn your citizenship with good behaviour.

QR codes are comparable to a social credit score.

It's part of a top-down society that's based on compulsion.

There are people who believe in a top-down society by using technology.

They see the need for a new society, which I agree with.

And if one strategy doesn't work they'll find another way to make it work.

The fight will go on and it will shift to the next topic for people to worry about.

I think we need to realise that we're living in a unique era in history.

Don't focus too much on QR codes. They're just a means in a larger game.

Focus on that game.

And people should accept that we're in a transition period.

Let's make this a better world. It's possible.

We have the technology to make it a better world.

The industrial age has brought us many benefits.

Like wealth, prosperity, cars, we can go on holidays.

These are great things, but it hasn't really improved us as humans beings.

After all, we've become human robots. We've become human resources.

You can also see this as a chance to build a new society together.

We can work less and can use more and more technology to do the work.

It gives us more time to focus on the interpersonal aspects of life...

and on questions of meaning.

And we can look for ways to bring us to a higher level as human beings.

You're sketching an alternative for Klaus Schwab's Great Reset.

What needs to happen to achieve your alternative vision?

My vision is based on regional democracy.

A direct democracy that uses technology and developments to reorganise society.

You'll see that a clash will take place between two opposed views of society.

The current rulers won't go voluntarily.

They're the last to see things and need to be persuaded.

And then we'll get the butterfly effect.

It will only take something small to set it all off.

Things will start to escalate and then the transition will take place.

People are working on a new social and political order.

The decision-making power of nations will disappear.

Political and economic decisions will be taken by a global government.

A new global order that's in the interest of large non-elected key players.

Like international organisations, NGOs and large companies.

But it's in conflict with the interests of society.

In the long term I'm optimistic...

because conflicts between the elite and citizens have occurred before.

It has happened before and each time it failed.

People overestimate the power of the latest technologies...

to take control of a country, a region or the world...

because more and more people realise what's going on.

They see there is an alternative and slowly they opt for that better alternative.

And you'll see that once again the plans to create a top-down society will fail.

It's going to fail.

And finally, I spoke to Wassila Hachchi. A former politician for D66...

who, since her departure, can speak freely about the way politics are done.

What are her thoughts on the current system crisis?

Politics is a world that operates on the basis of fear.

Just look at the House of Representatives.

That fear is reflected everywhere, I even saw it within my own party.

You fight within your party for a higher place on the list of candidates.

You also fight against the other parties to win the elections.

And there's a fight in the power system to become a state secretary or minister.

The whole system is permeated in fear. That's what drives the politicians.

As people, we flourish and are empowered in an environment of trust.

When we're in an environment where we help each other.

And the powers-that-be should always realise: You serve the people.

You don't have power over the people.

The people decide whether or not you are worthy of that power.

In the end, as human beings we need a system change.

A new kind of democracy.

A system where people feel that they have more influence.

Systems don't change by playing the game like it's always been played.

You'll have to change the game.

I've learned that real changes only take place...

when the population demands it.

Power systems aren't eager to change.

Moreover, when power has been structured in a certain way...

those in power don't want it to change, because then they could lose power.

Just look in your history books, real political changes only occur...

after the population has said: 'We've had enough. Things have to change.'

It's very enlightening to talk with experts that are independent...

about the coronavirus policy. There's only one possible conclusion:

Coronavirus is not dangerous at all. It's comparable with the common flu.

The measures are ineffective and extremely damaging to society.

And vaccinating the entire population is not only unnecessary, but dangerous.

Luckily more people are realising that the current coronavirus policy...

doesn't serve public health, but that other interests are involved.

The interests of a global elite that wants a global top-down society.

We shouldn't be misled by the so-called relaxation of measures.

Especially when measures are just put on ice for later use.

It's not the first time we've gotten excited about nothing.

If we sit back now and wait, it's not a matter of if, but rather of when...

we will be robbed again of our rights and liberties.

In the meantime, millions are being invested in developing the coronavirus app.

Globally, far-reaching preparations are being made for drastic control measures.

An extension of a mandatory QR code to be able to travel.

And the introduction of digital ID cards.

Considering how much power the governments already have...

we must prevent them at all costs from getting more means to control our lives.

Even now, unwelcome opinions are dismissed as disinformation...

and censored from the debates.

Even now, bank accounts of protestors and political enemies are being frozen.

Even now, unvaccinated people are losing their jobs.

The power of governments should be limited.

That's why we need to continue our resistance.

Together we must take a stand against the government.

We shouldn't let ourselves be divided by our differences...

because only through mass protests, civil disobedience and other actions...

will we win our freedom back. Battle-ready and united.