The implicit admission of guilt of the government

The government is aware of the social importance of research into excess mortality. Not that they read Virusvaria, but they do read the Telegraaf: "Friday, December 16. another article appeared in the Telegraaf in which question marks are raised..."

Then you would expect exclamation marks as a response: "Here you have your data! Nothing to worry about, see for yourself!"

But no. It is well realized that the data research must answer questions about "premature death in relation to vaccination coverage, vaccination coverage and absenteeism and vaccination status of subpopulations (see phase 3 conduct research for the research questions)." At least that's what it says in the accompanying letter.

What is avoided here is "vaccination status at the individual level", but that does not have to be dramatic, because data at the subpopulation level can provide sufficient starting points – provided that the subpopulations are chosen sensibly. If something interesting comes out of that, it will have to be sorted out later on an individual level, if only at the request of relatives.

Let's see what is delivered (Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)), then that is indeed on an individual level because with BSN numbers:

Phase 1: data transfer from RIVM to CBS.
CBS receives the so-called 'CBS vaccination file' from RIVM. This consists of a
number of personal data filtered from the BI-CIMS dataset. These are:
• BSN number;
•Gender;
•Year of birth;
• Vaccine name;
• vaccination date;
• vaccination batch;
• administering authority (GGD/GP/hospital).

Why the letter refers to subpopulations is unclear. The above facts are indeed what was asked. Although the date of death is not listed, CBS has it together with the causes of death, and that can be linked via the BSN. So then all data is available.

Until we then read that the dataset is incomplete and has therefore been made unusable for the previously described purpose:

• Data of asylum seekers are not included. There are quite a few. Is there something in that, a higher sensitivity or an extremely high covid mortality? (not the scope of this research, but conceivable bycatch). Why are they not allowed to participate in the research, are they not part of it?
• Data from unvaccinated people is also not provided. This removes the possibility to compare vax vs non-vax: there is no reference. Of course, there are pre-vax data, but they are not representative of what took place epidemiologically during the corona crisis.

Nowhere is it explained why the file is invalidated in this way. And then comes the icing on the cake:

"Persons who have died" are not included.

For data that are supposed to serve as the basis for a study of mortality, this is too crazy to run wild. Then CBS still cannot make a link between vaccination status and mortality because they do not receive vaccination data from the deceased!

CBS has prepared a number of questions that show that they do not want to understand what independent research stands for. The questions mainly illustrate how badly they want to stay away from the vaccines. Below are their main questions about the EXCESS MORTALITY= study (keep that in mind when you read the questions):

1. What is the association between a previous COVID-19 infection and causes of death?
2. What is the association between a previous hospitalization due to COVID-19 and causes of death?
3. Since the start of the COVID-19 epidemic, what has been the influence of the COVID-19 epidemic on (changes in) life expectancy and inequality in longevity?
4. What are the causes of death and comorbidities among deceased persons stating COVID-19 on the cause of death form?
5. Is vaccination status a mediator in the association between socioeconomic status and premature death?
6. What are the determinants of long covid?
7. Longitudinal tracking of vaccinated versus unvaccinated people, ideally corrected for immunity as best as possible (i.e. include previously experienced COVID-19 cases confirmed by positive test result)
8. Vaccination turnout after COVID-19 admission/COVID-19 death in close family?
9. Course of COVID-19 within families (severe vs. non-severe); This includes looking at admission, but also, for example, home ventilation after a visit to the emergency room
10. Vaccination coverage based on policy data by sector and plotting time against absenteeism statistics
11. Link with the health monitor data to show differences in perceived health by vaccination status

How should the data provided, exclusively from living persons, answer the above questions related to death? These are questions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 – less than half of the proposed questions have to do with mortality at all!

The elephant is again prominently placed in the middle of the room. We see the word "Vaccination" surreptitiously popping up in a question such as "Is vaccination status a mediator in the association between socioeconomic status and premature death?" A supporting role, that's for sure.

Sabotage

This is pure sabotage. This is frustrating democracy. This is yet another signal of the totalitarian technocratic tendency that is taking hold of our country.

These data are meaningless for an (excess) mortality study. I would like to hear the motivation for withholding essential data. The only explanation that remains now is that the realization has sunk in that the government has totally screwed up during the corona crisis. Everything has been done wrong, from face masks to vaccinations and everything in between, from school closures to curfews to dying in loneliness.

Like headless chickens, the pharmacia has been running after them, stimulated by a few strategically placed lobbyists. Incompetent and blinded by fear, desperate politicians, in the absence of their own vision, have clung to a globalist semi-fascist clump of powerful industrialists and politicians with standard slogans such as "Build back better", whereby strengthening one's own position of power was of course an enticing prospect – especially for those who wanted the best for the world. And who doesn't.

To the population, the sovereignty of the country has been further squandered – and all this with a sense of moral superiority that justifies misdeeds. The fact that the Public Prosecutor's Office has not yet surfaced on this suggests the worst about our rule of law, especially now that the investigation is being deliberately frustrated.

“he who, after a crime has been committed, with the intention of covering it up or preventing or complicating the investigation or prosecution, destroys, displaces, conceals or evades the investigation of judicial or police officials objects on or with which the crime has been committed or other traces of the crime;”

He faces a maximum of six months in prison, which is not too bad for suspects of crimes of this order of magnitude. As long as it is not a terrorist act, because then it will be five years. That also does not seem proportional to tens of thousands of deaths and the other malaise caused.

Buying time, but for what?

If this data delivery really continues like this, it will be another sham. Of course, the government won't get away with this, they know that too. They buy some time again because the cleaning of the databases will probably take longer – but they will make mistakes in that too. The panic must be complete there at VWS/rivm, in a way I feel sorry for them too.

"It just happened, you can't turn it back"

"It was the only option, we acted in good conscience but they may not understand that"

"We can resign, but then the country will get stuck"

"If it becomes clear what we have done, the state order is at stake, no one benefits from that"

"Too big to fail" – this does not only apply to banks.

Ruben van Gaalen denies everything

Ruben van Gaalen denies this on Twitter. Or there are inaccuracies in the documentation.

According to van Gaalen, it would only concern deceased people before the corona crisis, who have been filtered out. However, it does not say that. When he is further confronted about this, it turns out that he is not the one who is in charge of it.

He also assures us that no data will be lost. But that is not the complaint at all. It's about what is delivered.

He indicates that the proposed research questions can indeed be answered with the data. As we have seen from the specifications, that is doubtful and moreover, those questions are far from complete.

See also his response to this LinkedIn post by Ronald Meester. He denies what is written in black and white. If this is not yet another smokescreen, it seems to me that they should correct that document first. It should not be the case that they throw van Gaalen under the bus later in order to fall back on the official documents and create another postponement.

Van Gaalen often gives his own twist to numbers (see The most read post of this blog).