ER Editor: The RIVM is the Netherlands’ National Institute for Public Health and the Environment falling under the Ministry for Health, Welfare and Sport.
See this we previously published on Dutch virologist Marion Koopmans of the Viroscience Lab of the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam —
Chance of a Major Virus Disaster in Rotterdam Is Real, Supervision is Missing
The lab that she co-runs is at the centre of some dangerous gain of function research; her influence is broad —
The head of this lab, Prof. Dr. Marion Koopmans, is making headlines of her own. Koopmans is best-known for being co-author of the Corman-Drosten paper, a paper that validated the RT-PCR test for the testing of SARS-CoV-2, after which the test became the driving factor of the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic.
Koopmans has her deep state tentacles everywhere. When she took up office as a member of the Outbreak Management Team Netherlands (through which she advised the Dutch government on the Corona restrictions) in 2020, she listed no fewer than 21 additional positions in her declaration of interests.
She’s been part of the international research team investigating the origins of Covid in Wuhan and reportedly has ties to the CCP. She’s run with the Fauci – Collins – Farrar (WHO) – Drosten pack. She’s right up there with the best of them.
Many thanks to colleague Michel van der Kemp for providing English translations of e-mails in Dutch below and for alerting us to this investigation.
********
Marion Koopmans and the RIVM: The Other Corona Gap
CEES van den BOS
Marion Koopmans fulfilled various roles in the pandemic. This partly led to difficult relationships with people and institutions.
Koopmans is affiliated with the Erasmus Medical Center when the virus outbreak of the new SARS-Cov-2 occurs. Because of her track record and large network, she is assigned several roles in crisis response.
As a professor of virology you are responsible for research and its financing. The response of international and national governments to the pandemic released large budgets that flowed to research institutes through subsidy mechanisms such as ZonMW and Horizon. This commercial aspect leads to interests that sometimes conflict with others.
Released WOB documents [FOI documents] show that the relationship with authorities such as the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) has not always been good. Nor does it appear that the virologist’s actions always score equally high on the business ethics scale. Name-calling, intimidating and power games appear to be tools in her toolbox.
Koopmans’ roles in the pandemic
The primary position that Koopmans fulfills is the role of head of the virology department at Erasmus University in Rotterdam. In this role she leads various lines of research and is therefore also responsible for raising funds (grants) for these studies. When the new coronavirus broke out in 2019, Koopmans was one of the advisors to the World Health Organization (WHO). In this capacity she contributed to the development of the Corman-Drosten paper. Based on this paper, the PCR test was developed that would be used worldwide to determine whether someone carried the virus particles. The paper was controversial because peer review had taken place within 24 hours of publication, and a group of independent scientists had filed a request for the paper to be retracted. The request was not granted by Eurosurveillance.
Shortly after the start of the pandemic, the Dutch government, led by Jaap van Dissel of the RIVM, set up the Outbreak Management Team (OMT). Marion Koopmans was in the OMT.
In 2019, the controversial Disinformation Think Tank was founded. An illustrious group of several doctors, psychologists, communication scientists, philosophers, inspectors, civil servants and ex-politicians who now work at tech giants Google and Facebook. The body was established in 2019 on behalf of the European Commission and arises from the Vaccination Alliance. The Think Tank had recruited approximately five experts or ‘active people’ to interpret alleged misinformation about the vaccines and provide a response. Since Koopmans was not in the Vaccination Alliance, but was in the Think Tank, it is to be expected that she belonged to the group of experts. In this capacity, Koopmans contributed to a dark period in recent history. Critical voices were censored and doctors were intimidated by fellow think tank members when they expressed an opinion that did not benefit vaccination willingness. Partly because of the foregoing, Koopmans had a clear presence in mainstream and social media. Perhaps this is a result of her role in the Disinformation Think Tank. For example, she attended a lecture by Sigrid Kaag about polarization on the internet together with some activist social media users.
The irony is that these activists and Think Tank members fueled the polarization because the people who criticized the policy were attacked in an organized and group manner.
Marion traveled to Wuhan as an advisor to the WHO to have her assumptions about the origin of the coronavirus confirmed.
In another group of scientists of which she was part, the origins of the coronavirus were investigated. The other members were big names in virology, such as Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), Francis Collins of the National Institute of Health (NIH), Jeremy Farrar as head of the Wellcome Trust and Christian Drosten. Eddie Holmes, Bob Garry, Andrew Rambaut and Kristian Andersen were among the group who considered a lab leak a real possibility. The latter found a remarkable molecular structure in the virus, which he believed would point towards an escape from the laboratory rather than declare it a zoonosis. Koopmans argued in her email not to publish this finding because it could fuel conspiracy theories.
Apparently Koopmans was already convinced at the research stage of what conspiracy theories were and what science was. Ron Fouchier and Christian Drosten were adamantly against an investigation into a lab leak. The possibility of a lab escape could only be included in the report after extensive negotiations, provided it was stated that it was extremely unlikely. The advice was given not to conduct further investigation into a lab leak.
Twelve days after the above email exchange, Marion gave a presentation to the Royal Academy of Sciences (KNAW), in which she classified the possibility of the laboratory origin as a debunked hypothesis.
From her position within the ErasmusMC (EMC), she participated in various studies commissioned by the European Commission or the Dutch government. Just like the RIVM, ErasmusMC has one of the reference laboratories that are necessary for sequencing virus particles during germ surveillance research. This involves monitoring virus variants found by means of the PCR test.
Within subsidy projects it is important which role is fulfilled. The secretary is seen as the main contractor and with regard to the subsidy provider and all participants it is important to see who is ‘in the lead’. This occasionally led to tensions within the project groups in which Koopmans participated.
Escalation after the mink study
In the second half of October 2020, the first indications of a disturbed relationship between Koopmans and the RIVM became visible. The RIVM has been commissioned to set up germ surveillance, together with several partners. The ErasmusMC is one of the partners. In an email that the RIVM sends to Koopmans, it is proposed to discuss the irritations and pain points in a follow-up session. Koopmans does not respond to the email, so she is kindly reminded of the previous email a week later.
[ To email at erasmusmc.nl
Hi <redacted>
The email below may have escaped your attention for a while, but we have agreed to organize a follow-up meeting in the short term. I need your input for that.
…
Now we would like to schedule a meeting with a number of stakeholders. Do you already know who will be the first point of contact from your group and who you want to come to the meeting?
…
In this meeting, pain points and irritations should also be discussed, so that we can make a good start with mutual trust.]
Two weeks later, Koopmans responded by asking whether she could receive the publication of another study on mink. More correspondence may have taken place in the meantime that has not been released in the WOB publication. In response to Koopmans’ request, the RIVM employee sent the requested publication about mink on November 11. The email shows that Marion had already received the document.
The RIVM also presented the mink research, mentioning the ErasmusMC and Marion Koopmans as those involved.
Koopmans is angry with the RIVM. Her data, which the ErasmusMC would have uploaded to the central research database GISAID, would have been used in the research that the RIVM had revealed. GISAID is a public platform where researchers can share data with each other, but there are rules of conduct linked to the use of each other’s data. Fellow virologist Ron Fouchier, also affiliated with ErasmusMC and a good acquaintance of Koopmans, is on the Scientific Advisory Council at GISAID.
A day after the RIVM employee sent the research report on the mink to Koopmans, the virologist filed a formal complaint with GISAID against the RIVM on November 12. According to Koopmans, the health institute has violated the rules of conduct regarding the use of Erasmus MC data.
In a long email with the subject: “Breach of terms of use”, Koopmans complains against the organization of fellow OMT member Jaap van Dissel.
The RIVM is said to have already used the data, while Koopmans’ research consortium is still analyzing and describing the data. The complaint further describes that one of the researchers was in regular contact with the RIVM group that allegedly used the data, without informing this person about the impending publication.
A later email from Koopmans to GISAID contains the points of objection. This may be a forwarded email that was initially addressed to the RIVM.
Not nice of the RIVM and unusual in scientific circles, so Koopmans is within her right to be indignant about this and file a complaint. The question is whether this is the right way to resolve such a conflict between two Dutch research institutes on an international stage.
A new project: Germ surveillance
In the same period as the escalation regarding the mink data takes place, the RIVM will prepare a quotation for the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS) to carry out germ surveillance. The origin of germ surveillance is a wish from the European Union, which has asked the member states to set up such a project.
[Translation: Sequencing techniques and the analysis of sequence data are increasingly being used to monitor Covid-19. The objectives of the application of sequencing around Covid-19 within the RIVM are molecular identification and genotyping based on Covid-19 germ surveillance. In addition, sequencing is used to support outbreak investigations. Using next generation sequencing (NGS) techniques, it is possible to achieve these objectives with more depth and in a more efficient manner than before with traditional techniques. For example, Covid-19 germ surveillance and outbreak research using NGS ensure that clusters and (regional) outbreaks can be detected and monitored with higher resolution and better control can take place through a targeted response.]
Health Minister Hugo de Jonge regularly described the purpose of germ surveillance in the media as ‘a view of the virus’. Samples are sent from various hospitals and test streets to the reference laboratories to analyze the presence of new variants of the virus. In this way, outbreaks of certain variants with all viral properties can be monitored.
Based on this data, the RIVM feeds its calculation models, resulting in the well-known graphs that appear on the corona dashboard or in courts.
[Translation: Impulse for pandemic preparedness, even after Covid-19
Heading to a national sequencing network for ’emerging infections’
…
Sequencing for the benefit of Public Health
- for germ surveillance
…
- Scaling up to 1500 monsters a week to feed the RIVM models. Weekly input for OMT.
…
Does the LCT give a positive advise to VWS and Dienst Testen [Testing service] to erect this network? Jan 28th: Yes, Action VWS ]
There has been a lot of fuss about the British variant of the virus. This was on the rise around the turn of the year from 2020 to 2021, and people feared major consequences. The fear of this variant was decisive in the appeal that the Viruswaarheid foundation filed against the state.
[Translation: Tuesday February 9th 2021, 14:51
…
See the update of the image below for the purpose of debate. Is this sufficient? What struck us is that the share of British mutant in the JvD sheets of CH and the 99th OMT was approximately 50%, in contrast to last week’s message (estimated 2/3 British mutant). In today’s weekly report, RIVM provides an explanation with a graph, see below. RIVM indicates that adjustment is made by using more current data. Do we need to draw attention to this point elsewhere?
…
Blue: Old variant
Red: British variant]
Germ surveillance later also formed the basis for the advice to inject children between 12 and 17 years old with the mRNA vaccines in order to form a human shield around the elderly and vulnerable. The RIVM models that were fed with data from germ surveillance showed that we would run into problems six months later if young people were not vaccinated.
[ Translation: this week another meeting about vaccination of 12-17 year olds at the GR
…
What is the best way to deal with these changes towards GR? <redacted> is writing up, with the latest updates of <redacted> model. If we get permission to share the written report it will be Wednesday or Thursday. Maybe too late for the GR. We can also immediately share a new version of this figure with <redacted> to make it clear that last week’s germ surveillance gives clear indications that we will have a problem in the winter. Is that needed? It only seems relevant to me if it is important for the considerations that still have to be made.]
Koopmans would like to participate in Germ Surveillance
Two weeks after Marion Koopmans submitted the formal complaint to GISAID about the mink data, the virologist contacted the RIVM. She had heard about the new project on germ surveillance.
A short email with only the subject line “Can we please call” will be answered by the RIVM the next day. “We are working on the formal response to the mink consortium regarding the letter to GISAID (ed.). We can be in touch as soon as this is completed.”
Three weeks later Koopmans sends a response. The email shows that she would like to get in touch with the health institute about germ surveillance, but she understands that RIVM employees are not allowed to talk to her Erasmus employees.
The escalation over the mink data has put the relationship between RIVM and Erasmus on edge. Further email exchanges that day show that the RIVM started germ surveillance without involving Koopmans. The email shows some distance. That goes wrong with Marion.
[Translation: As far as we are concerned, we are planning a meeting at the beginning of January in which we can discuss germ surveillance. It is true that we have started germ surveillance in accordance with the instructions from VWS to the RIVM, but this will be further developed in consultation with you. We will provide a number of possible dates for consultations in January this week.
…
And that comment about germ surveillance is honestly not well received. It is indeed how all communication comes across: take it or leave it. Shame.]
A power struggle unfolds in which the organization of germ surveillance is in the hands of the RIVM, and Erasmus is only one of the participants. Marion does not accept that. Erasmus is not “just one of the reference labs”. Koopmans demands equality.
[ Translation: I don’t think we agree on the principles yet. At the time, I bundled the comments from here in the germ surveillance piece and sent them to you. We haven’t talked about that yet, so it is strange that these actions have already been initiated. In fact, requests for many materials are being sent to the partners with whom we have been sequencing with ZON MW money and with the RIVM since February. When I asked for consultation about VEO and <redacted>, I was told that people are not allowed to talk. That sends really strange signals.
…
My question is about how you interact with each other as a reference lab. That is not: we decide and then there is something for you, but that is consultation on the basis of equality. If that is not possible according to your approach, we will have difficult cooperation. That is still not the intention, but there is work to be done.]
This is also evident from an even more strongly worded email from Marion Koopmans that she sent a week later. She commented on the intended organizational form. “I am really not going to accept if this is not corrected now,” “people are not allowed to talk to me” and “we are the primary partner,” the RIVM says.
[Translation: I want to discuss this.
…
I’m really not going to accept if this isn’t corrected now.
…
IDS has a two FTE (full-time entities) staff in the projects I mention, people are not allowed to talk to me because there is no “formal response”.
…
we are primary partner]
A few weeks later it became apparent that the two institutes were still having difficulty working together when the OMT needed input from both RIVM and Erasmus in connection with a request for advice. There has been no response from Erasmus.
[Translation: From RIVM to Erasmusmc.nl
…
Another OMT is planned next Wednesday morning.
…
Can you prepare some things?
…
yes, <redacted> ask for an update on the new variant in Rotterdam (for information to OMT members, max 5 slides, <redacted> update nationally (1-2 slides) and also feedback on germ surveillance plan
…
FYI, some things are already on the OMT agenda. Has there been a response from EMC to the minutes <redacted>?
…
No, no response whatsoever, I sent them on Thursday morning.]
In the weekly overview from the end of 2020 that was prepared by both institutes, according to one of the colleagues, ‘political input’ from Erasmus appears to have crept in.
[Translation: I believe that the correct representation by RIVM colleagues should prevail over improvements from EMC. We represent the real situation and not politics and PR.
…
as if the RIVM and the Erasmus MC are both involved in additional sampling and germ surveillance, where the evolution of the virus in NL is investigated through sequencing. That seemed to me to be the relevant message for the reader.]
Yet the RIVM appears to be meeting Marion’s demands. Erasmus will have a more prominent role in the germ surveillance process. This is evident from an email exchange between the RIVM and the Testing Service (DT), which must deliver the samples to the laboratories. The direction lies neatly with the RIVM and Erasmus.
[Translation: I will send you a piece of text that I consulted with <redacted> <redacted> and she wrote it. As far as I can see, the control lies neatly with Erasmus and RIVM. As DT I have offered to help if needed.
…
He is not going to say anything, but he would like to see the presentation tomorrow in advance. He can then nod in agreement. His idea is the lead at RIVM and EMC.]
OMT member and RIVM boss Jaap van Dissel seems to ignore the increased tensions between the research institutes. This is evident from a note that he circulates at the request of VWS in which he assumes a more prominent role for the RIVM than Koopmans has enforced.
[Translation: From: a gmail adress [Kemp: Health Minister Hugo de Jonge has used a private email (against the rules) as we learned due to a mask scandal. This email seems to be from the minister.]
…
(primate germ surveillance RIVM, in-depth patients ErasmusMC, both referential lab EVP)
…
Jaap.docx
…
I am slightly surprised by this note because we are currently preparing a note on sequencing.
…
on that basis, we at IDS started scaling up. There will also soon be consultations with a number of labs in the Netherlands to work on possible (over)capacity.
…
jointly shaping this by RIVM, EMC, AMC.]
The RIVM employees react with surprise to the note. This would first have to go through the Erasmus and Amsterdam Medical Center.
Van Dissel was apparently in line for a leading role for the RIVM, but Koopmans saw it differently. The position game begins. On the same day, Koopmans sends his own note to VWS, with an estimate for expanding the sequencing capacity. She concludes her email with the message that she is willing to discuss further and that she ‘would like to participate’.
[ Translation: From: erasmusmc.nl
…
Subject: estimation of expansion of sequencing capacity, size and design
…
As requested, here is an estimate of the possible size of an approach/device for scaling up sequencing
…
prepared for further consultation
…
I would like to participate]
The VWS official reacts with surprise to Koopmans’ spontaneous note. He had expected that her assessment would be part of the RIVM’s plan. This makes it clear to officials at the health ministry what the current situation is.
[Translation: from MinVWS.nl
…
I had requested <redacted> from the RIVM. But now <redacted> spontaneously comes up with a nice note. I have asked <redacted> to include this in the RIVM proposal for Thursday.
…
<Redacted> suggests that the Hospitals/MMLs are doing the clusters/outbreaks]
It later turns out that the Erasmus memo was drawn up at the request of the Ministry of the Interior and that the RIVM will also be involved.
After the crossing notes, Marion Koopmans goes on an expedition to China. A RIVM employee kindly informs her about the upcoming discussions about the design of sequencing. He will keep her informed of developments.
[Translation: From RIVM
…
As agreed with <redacted>, I will keep you informed of the conversations I have about sequencing. Sequencing of course also plays a role in the LCT and in VWS. <Redacted> asked me to tell you something about that.
…
After Thursday’s discussion I will inform you about the results and how we will take this further. <redacted> lots of success in China!]
The virologist does not accept this. In a bossy tone, she demands in capital letters that the design of the scaled-up sequencing be discussed with her in advance. She notes that working together is just ‘a sauce’, but that the reality is more difficult.
[Translation: Thanks for the update. What is currently missing is a shared vision. We are the central reference labs, but there is no structural consultation on essential decision points. We pretend to the outside world that we are working together, but that is just an explanation.
…
I’d like to discuss how that might change. I have a motivated team, and I also want us to take the joint reference lab role seriously. This is only possible to a limited extent through consultations with IDS. This may require consultation at a somewhat higher level.
…
design of scaled-up sequencing, we would like to discuss this with you in advance]
The RIVM employee responds businesslike to Koopmans’ message. An appointment and a joint piece (attachment) will follow.
A colleague sees through Koopmans’ positional play and describes it as ‘chess steps’. From the email it can be concluded that Koopmans is trying to settle matters at a higher level with, in all likelihood, Jaap van Dissel.
[Translation: from RIVM.nl
…
We now have to leave the ref lab issue out of this. We are switching gears now. In my opinion, we are now giving too much space. That consultation at a higher level: in my opinion, these are chess steps because she knows that she will get more done at <redacted>. Furthermore, she now sees opportunities again because she thinks that you are the conversation partner.
…
ECDC has now thought along with our calculations and they believe that what they are proposing this week exceeds: namely a minimum of 500 per week per country. So that’s nice.]
Within the RIVM people seem to be satiated when it comes to the political game. They want to continue on the project’s chosen path, and not keep ‘converting it to the nonsense from China’. This refers to the demands of Koopmans, who is currently staying in China.
[Translation: To: RIVM.nl
…
This week, ECDC will state in its RRA that countries must sequence at least 500 per week. So they agree with our reasoning of minus 1500 per week. So I’ll mention that then.
…
And please, let’s not keep looking at the jokes from China. We took a path on Monday and we will stick to it.]
Escalation from China
The RIVM’s course to continue on the chosen path and take the lead in germ surveillance research is causing emotions to run high. From China, Koopmans sends a lengthy email to the RIVM. In a coercive and derogatory tone, she addresses the RIVM colleagues to first determine a vision of the organization before the ideas are submitted to the National Test Capacity Coordination Structure (LCT). The way in which cooperation is currently being conducted comes across as competition, Koopmans notes.
The email concludes with a threat to terminate the contribution that RIVM makes to another project for which it apparently has a greater mandate.
[Translation: From: ErasmusMC.nl
…
As previously indicated, I have a serious need to discuss the basic principles. Apparently that doesn’t come across, I don’t know how I can make it any clearer. These basic principles are about collaboration as reference labs. By repeatedly inserting AMC, this always shifts to the back and matters remain unclear. We are the primary partner, that agreement is still in the works. The way we work now comes across as competition, not cooperation.
…
I will comment, but I want to indicate BEFORE the LCT meeting that this is a joint thing.
…
and is therefore further developed with foreign partners. <redacted> and <redacted> were involved in this until they were asked in October to no longer consult directly with us. This must also be recorded as part of the division of roles. Collaboration is not possible without consultation, and the current route whereby people with the specific knowledge <redacted><redacted> can no longer talk to us directly does not work.
…
With further development, I think this is something that comes with it. The alternative is that we drop that and cancel your contribution to the project. In any case, our data also goes into the European data hub, and we are investigating how this can also be done with patient data in collaboration with health RI.]
Koopmans is putting pressure on the RIVM to give her a prominent position. Otherwise, she will throw the RIVM out of another ongoing process. This is not well received.
The usually correct RIVM employees find it difficult to contain their frustration, which results in a revealing email.
Marion Koopmans is said to have insulted several RIVM colleagues in front of others, threatened to call a lawyer and then filed a complaint with an international organization. This refers to the complaint to GISAID about the mink research.
[Translation: I sometimes feel the need to give her something back, as if everything is because of us. Communication stopped after she insulted a number of our employees during a meeting with others, then threatened to send a lawyer to us and filed a complaint with an international organization. We also have a little bit about who cc lab p&r. The project she is talking about is a project in which the international organization wanted us to participate in connection with knowledge <redacted> and <redacted>, unfortunately EMC is the initiator of this, there was no other way. That is difficult, but I think the work has largely been done. Throwing us out there is a very rude threat. Furthermore, it seems to me very unwise to drag this argument into law. By the way, we previously tried (in germ surveillance note 1 from last year) to divide the tasks, but <redacted> did not agree with this.]
This email also indicates that RIVM was asked to participate in the Danish mink research because of their expertise. Erasmus was the initiator in this research, which gives Koopmans the power to expel the last RIVM employees. Finally, the email pleads not to include these tensions in the LCT consultation.
Another response in the email conversation is of a similar nature. Within the RIVM, people are aware of the fact that Koopmans wants to be the leader in germ surveillance research. The role that is reserved for the RIVM. They distance themselves from the note drawn up by Koopmans and propose not to present this note within the LCT.
[Translation: For now, a quick response: I do not agree with the proposed division of roles. There are aspects that are free for everyone in the Netherlands to explore (not everything is reflab), including us. There is no need to designate a tractor for this. Good example point 2. How does she get it into her head? Of course, together with our partners in the field, we conduct follow-up research into special cases in germ surveillance. These are also the icing on the cake for us and our partners in the Netherlands and no tractor is required at all.
…
The fact that she thinks there is an opening for this is because germ surveillance is primarily our responsibility. That does not mean that you can claim anything as a tractor. I therefore do not want the distribution below to be presented at the LCT. The quick note: the one SHE wrote up. Not WE, that has no value for us with regard to the fact that we have promised something.]
In the meantime, RIVM continues to organize germ surveillance and writes to all laboratories with the instructions to be followed. Each laboratory is asked to send 40 to 50 samples per week for analysis.
The relationship has seriously cooled down. In all likelihood, Koopmans is lobbying behind the scenes with other parties involved, with the aim of putting further pressure on the RIVM. The reasons for this can only be guessed at because not all documents have been made public. It cannot be ruled out that Koopmans would like to play a pioneering role in the germ surveillance process on the international stage. In other words, it could possibly damage her international reputation if it turns out that she is not given a prominent role in this project.
Three days after the escalating email exchanges about the positions within germ surveillance, messages from other parties involved emerge that do not unanimously support Koopmans’ principles.
In an email from the Amsterdam UMC addressed to the other involved parties, a clear vision regarding the use of the existing sequencing capacity is advocated. The financial aspect is also mentioned in the email.
[Translation: From: amsterdamUMC.nl
…
I am missing in your note and to a slightly lesser extent in that of <redacted> a clear vision, ambition or concrete proposal to make better use of the sequencing capacity and expertise in the country – there is enough enthusiasm for this and, as far as I am concerned, so is is a great necessity – <redacted> has sometimes suggested organizing this, for example, via healthcare regions. Now is the time to put such a vision on the table in concrete terms.]
Two days later, a letter from the Dutch Clinical Virology Working Group (NWKV) appears, addressed to the RIVM. In this letter they complain about the unclear division of roles between the RIVM and the Erasmus MC, but they would prefer to see the central role assigned to the RIVM.
[Translation: However, we note a number of points of interest regarding good national surveillance of variants in the Netherlands, which we believe can be addressed with the help of more intensive domestic cooperation and support.1. Fragmentation of activitiesIn addition to the RIVM, the EMC is an important party with regard to variant surveillance, but for us as clinical virologists it is not immediately clear what the division of roles is and what agreements there are between these two important parties. In addition, various labs are currently starting their own sequence activities, where everyone tries to reinvent the wheel themselves. Today we heard that a number of members of the WMDI have also taken up the challenge and are forming their own network for exchanging technical details regarding SARS-CoV2 sequencing. It is unclear whether and to what extent the RIVM is involved in this.
…
2. Quality of NGS reporting and interpretationThe fragmentation of both wet lab procedures and bioinformatic analysis within a small country such as the Netherlands poses a risk in terms of uniformity and quality of data, and of the interpretation of findings. In addition, in a fragmented landscape, sharing sequences and data is often difficult, which adversely affects the quality of analyzes and has a negative impact on the cost-effectiveness of sequence analysis. Openness and making data obtained in a standardized manner public are important pillars of good national surveillance.
…
The NWKV board supports the central role of the RIVM with regard to SARS-COV2 variant surveillance in the Netherlands and sees various opportunities to make that role explicit and to strengthen the bond and collaboration between microbiological labs and RIVM. We see decentralization of SARS-COV2 sequencing via a “sequencing consortium” with labs from different regions as a solution that addresses all the points mentioned above. The RIVM should not only have a central coordinating role, but also a facilitating role, by – in the run-up to a definitive solution – providing the labs with “know how” and “hardware” for a relatively cheap NGS solution, which suitable for quickly running small test volumes as a starter package (Minlon).]
Decision: RIVM in the lead
A decision will be made within the Board of Directors on February 2, 2021. The RIVM is in the lead for germ surveillance and setting up a national sequencing network.
[Translation: Various external parties want to contribute to coronavirus germ surveillance. RIVM is working in collaboration with LCT and Testing Service to set up a national sequencing network. There will be a lot of attention for emerging mutations. Availability of capacity for this is a point of concern.It is important that the GGD can easily switch to the new data system without endangering the quality of the data flow to the RIVM. <Redacted> examines whether RIVM can make adjustments to this.]
Three days later, GroenLinks [GreenLeft Political Party – Frans Timmermans’s party] submits a motion in the House of Representatives that somewhat supports the decision of the Management Council. This raises questions as to why the GroenLinks faction is currently presenting such a specifically formulated motion.
[Translation: motion test sequencing.docx
…
Attached is a motion submitted yesterday by Kroger, GroenLinks. According to the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport there will not be much support for this, but of course they would like a response line, preferably on Monday. That line will then be used in Wednesday’s debate, I understand. A sequence lab in every ROAZ region, as requested in the motion, does not seem necessary, not desirable and not feasible to me.
…
As far as I am concerned, the line would be that RIVM is setting up a new network with the field to carry out sequence analysis together, where control over the process is very important. It is essential that the right samples are sequenced, that good quality data is collected and shared, and that the data is available for modeling. Only in this way can we use sequence analysis effectively for control.]
Observations following this WOB research
- Marion Koopmans has held various positions during the corona crisis;
- Not all positions are compatible with each other, such as OMT member and contractor of subsidy projects. In theory, she could advise her own investigations. This also applies to Jaap van Dissel;
- The question is whether the co-author of the Corman-Drosten paper could also be involved in germ surveillance;
- A power game has taken place to threaten the leadership of germ surveillance, with improper pressure being exerted for a position of power by the RIVM.
SOURCE
************
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply