In the summer of 2021, allegations were made about corruption involving RIVM boss Jaap van Dissel and Stichting Open Nederland. However, these allegations were based on unreliable documents and were largely dismissed by journalists at the time. In September 2022, podcasters revived the claims, but a subsequent investigation revealed that the transaction overview used as evidence was filled with errors and inaccuracies. The podcasters eventually retracted their accusations, but the damage had been done, leading to widespread social media speculation and even parliamentary questions. This case illustrates how fake news and misinformation can spread rapidly, even when based on shaky evidence, and highlights the challenges in countering such narratives effectively.
1. RIVM boss Jaap van Dissel was accused of receiving 750,000 euros from the organization Stichting Open Nederland, which organized Testing for Access during the corona times [Document(page_content="00:00:00.48: It was an explosive accusation.\n00:00:03.00: RIVM boss Jaap van Dissel is said to have\nreceived 750,000 euros...\n00:00:07.00: ...from the organization that\norganized Testing for Access during corona times:\n00:00:10.80: Stichting Open Nederland.", metadata={})].
2. The accusation sparked a 'foul fuss' and led to a national television discussion [Document(page_content="00:00:12.48: 'Corruption', people shouted.\n00:00:14.68: This transaction statement\nhad to prove it.\n00:00:17.24: But the fuss turned out to be 'foul fuss',\nbecause this evidence is shaky on all sides...\n00:00:26.48: Yet the rumor received so much support\nthat it made it to national television.", metadata={})].
3. The evidence was found to be full of errors and seemed to have been pieced together [Document(page_content="00:00:22.68: ...is full of errors\nand seems to have been pieced together.", metadata={})].
4. The rumor was debunked by journalist Harry Hol, who pointed out numerous errors in the transaction overview [Document(page_content="00:13:24.52: Hol shoots the alleged evidence to pieces...\n00:13:27.52: The IBAN number is incorrect.\n00:13:29.04: The account number mentioned\nis not in Van Dissel's name.\n00:13:32.00: His title, professor, is mentioned,\nbut banks never mention that.\n00:13:35.64: There is a typo in the street name\nof Rabobank.\n00:13:38.12: The zip code is incorrect,\nthe final balance is incorrect.\n00:13:41.04: The payment comes from 'Gerrints SON',\nbut not from Stichting Open Nederland.\n00:13:45.20: And there are many more errors in it.", metadata={})].
5. The podcasters, Yves Gijrath and Erik de Vlieger, withdrew their accusations after the RIVM decided not to take legal action [Document(page_content="00:15:49.12: the RIVM decided\nnot to take legal action.\n00:15:52.72: But they call it unprecedented...\n00:15:54.60: ...that a news program\nand a Member of Parliament...\n00:15:57.12: ...connected Van Dissel\nwith corruption.", metadata={})].
6. Jaap van Dissel himself stated that the accusations were absurd and could quickly be seen as wrong [Document(page_content="00:01:49.28: With a little effort, one\ncould quickly see that something was wrong.", metadata={})].
7. The accusations were spread on social media, with the name Jaap van Dissel and variations of it being frequently tweeted [Document(page_content="00:02:53.44: But it was only after the publication of that podcast that\nTwitter really went wild. I'll get\n00:02:58.28: to the other peak\nof this graph in a moment...\n00:03:01.16: ...because almost everyone\nI spoke to about this...\n00:03:03.28: ...says that I first\nhave to go back in time...\n00:03:05.64: ...to understand how this story\naround Van Dissel originated