Letter to Pieter Omtzigt

Dear Mr. Omtzigt, dear Pieter,

It was with dismay that I read a statement that related to your 'excess mortality motion'. The motion was as follows:

I have been paying attention to this subject since August. Maurice de Hond informed me some time ago that he had pointed out my articles to some of his contacts in The Hague. It gave me great satisfaction that my efforts may have contributed to the creation of the above motion. Until I read the following announcement from outgoing Minister de Jonge:

There is a lot to be said about that. I will mention a few points.

1. It is not up to the minister to determine whether or not an external, independent research group can do its work. If he decides that in advance, he de facto blocks the investigation.
2. No academic group can conduct research if the data are not available. Moreover, this would indicate an unscientific working method on the part of the data collectors and owners. Science is transparent, at least in accordance with the guidelines for scientific integrity of the KNAW. The parties involved do not meet these standards, which is already a red flag that makes external investigation all the more necessary.
3. The insight of CBS is not there yet, the minister literally argues. Fortunately, it is not about the insight of CBS either. It is about an independent academic insight into the long-standing data.
4. There is no doubt that the data itself is there. CBS stopped monthly pre-reporting on 1 July, but that does not mean that the data would not be collected.
5. The data may not yet have been interpreted or even 'plausibilized', but an academic research group should be expected to be perfectly capable of doing so itself. That is exactly what the group should do. The exclusive right to this competence may never be claimed exclusively by a government institution.
6. Also with 'plausibilization', which is the intention before reporting, the question is how subjectively it is determined what is considered plausible and what is not. Stakeholders may prefer other plausibility than independent researchers. Bias must be excluded.
7. Waiting for a report on quarter 4 is completely unnecessary. It is of the utmost importance that the vaccines are excluded as soon as possible as a (co-)cause of excess mortality. Research over the second and third quarters is sufficient for this. In due course, the findings can be tested against the figures for the fourth quarter. The urgency is based on the fact that the trend has led to 3,000 unexplained excess deaths in the last four weeks. (Unexplained means: the total excess mortality minus the covid mortality reported by RIVM.)
8. In any case, the data from quarters 2 and 3 have been collected and digitized, i.e. ready for delivery. After all, quarter 3 would be publicly reported within a few weeks, hopefully less thickened than quarter two.
9. The lack of the dates of October and/or November is no problem at all. It is precisely quarters 2 and 3 that need to be analyzed.
10. The fact that the necessary data from quarters 2 and 3 is not made available is, looking at other civilized countries, shameful. Although there is a condensed report for quarter 2, it is not sufficient to carry out fine-grained analyses. Essential vectors are missing. In these quarters two and three, the intended excess mortality trend has clearly emerged. It is of the utmost importance that this data is immediately made available to science. A black box-like method does not fit in with a parliamentary democracy.

Please be prepared for in-depth explanation,

Anton Theunissen

Attachments

Charts

Statistics

A meeting with statistician Prof. Dr. Ronald Meester (professor of probability calculation at the VU) resulted in this study. It demonstrates a certain correlation with astonishingly convincing figures. Despite the fact that I have some methodological comments, I am glad that it has been scientifically confirmed that I am not chasing a figment of my imagination.

Daniël van der Tuin discussed the research in an article with the headline: statistical research points to injections as part of explanation. As far as we are concerned, this is too suggestive a title that is not substantiated in the study. Virusvaria and The Eucalyptic Society are working together on an article with reflections on this research. Any articles will appear on virusvaria.nl and eucalyptischgenootschap.nl.

Legal notice

Perhaps unnecessarily, the current legal framework for CBS provides for the possibility of providing detailed data on registered deaths (including registered cause of death, etc.) to scientific institutes for scientific research. Of course within the framework of privacy assurance. To this end, the institute in question must then submit a request to Statistics Netherlands. In view of the urgency of the issue at hand, release for scientific research is now very much needed and contrasts with the deadline for publication of the figures by Statistics Netherlands (CBS), as indicated by outgoing Minister de Jonge. This concerns disclosure and is different from provision for scientific research under the provisions of the aforementioned legislation.

So much for the letter to Pieter Omtzigt dated 1 December. Unfortunately, I have not received an answer here. Much media attention has been paid to Ronald Meester's research, which statistically confirmed the correlation identified in various virus varia articles. I spoke to Ronald once, to present him with the correlation. He was going to work on that and sent me another draft. He did not take my suggestions to heart; His focus had shifted in the meantime. I emailed him the questions below. Who knows, maybe he will come back to it.

Questions about the research of Meester et al

Link to the article

The points of contention after intervision with the Eucalyptic Society focus on the following matters. Anyone who follows the Society's committee meetings a little knows how high that can get. Could some of the points below give rise to a stricter follow-up investigation?

1. The total annual mortality was assumed. Because there was also a pandemic going on during the vaccination campaign, total mortality does not say much about the correlation: the pandemic will be identified as the main cause. After all, that was not included in the CBS forecast either.
2. The results would be less diffuse if the projected excess mortality (CBS) minus Covid mortality had been taken as a starting point instead of total mortality. We unanimously wonder why this was not chosen, not even for Covid mortality according to CBS. CBS-Covid mortality is sometimes up to 2x as high as that of RIVM, which means that although there is less but still an unusual, unexplained excess mortality.
3. The result might have been a bit sharper if a shorter period with little covid prevalence had been chosen (e.g. May to August [or longer now]). I understand that on the other hand, this results in a data reduction (from 41 to 16 weeks). That may be a practical problem.
4. In the 65-80 group, there is of course a lot of mortality noise. This is where the poor quality of the data takes its revenge. 0-65 is even more difficult: a far too diverse age cohort. Of course, the mortality rates among the elderly are higher and the fluctuations are greater. However, the same thing happens at 0-65, especially when you consider that 0-15 is not vaccinated and almost no one under 40 dies. That is not noticeable at all if you do not assume excess mortality minus Covid mortality. 1,000 deaths is negligible in terms of total annual mortality. Calculated back to one dominant cause of death, it is of course different, especially if it concerns a medical procedure. They may be fewer but still unnecessarily deceased young people with much more QALY loss.
5. The focus in your piece is on 'mortality directly following vaccination'. The figures/graphs I have presented do not provide a starting point for this; Rather, there seems to be a delay or lagging effect of about 5 months.
6. What is also unclear to me: do the mortality forecasts of CBS not correspond to your result of the "CBS method with Eurostat data"? If not, what is wrong with it? If so, why not just use the CBS data, then you are in a stronger position, right?
7. If mortality is above the forecast for several months in a row but within the margin of uncertainty, do you notice that if you only look at it every three weeks?
8. "Increased Risk Hypothesis: [...] After that period of three weeks, this person has the CBS mortality probability again."
   Is that a criterion? That would mean that if people continue to die AFTER those three weeks, the hypothesis is invalidated? I can hardly believe that, but why is it there? Is there any hard data to assume that it will happen within three weeks? Cutting off at three weeks is not in line with the apparent accumulative effect that seems to have occurred. I say been, because I hope it is now declining. It will then be all the more exciting to see what the boosters will do.

And the blogger, he blogged on.