Developments in the Omtzigt motion, regarding the independent academic research into the excess mortality. You may have already read the minister's first answer and a letter to Omtzigt in the article of January 15. If not, click on the purple bar below.
Motion Pieter Omtzigt, response from the minister and my letter to Omtzigt
December 20, 2022
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:
MOTION BY MEMBER OMTZIGT
Proposed 1 December 2021
The Chamber,
after hearing the deliberations,
- noting that, according to Statistics Netherlands, 800 to 900 more people died per week than expected in the past two weeks;
- noting that the RIVM reports that approximately 300 people per week have died from COVID-19 in the past two weeks;
- whereas the other causes of this high excess mortality are unclear;
calls on the government to start an academic study as soon as possible to investigate the reasons and causes of excess mortality up to and including November 2021, and to inform the House of Representatives about this as soon as possible, and proceeds to the order of the day.
Omtzigt Hotels
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:
'The adopted motion by member Omtzigt calling for an academic study to be started into the reasons and causes of excess mortality up to and including November 2021 cannot yet be taken up.
Excess mortality from CBS is the difference compared to a multi-year average. If the difference is large, it is likely that this is due to COVID19, but this is not certain due to the lack of insight into the underlying causes of death.
Insight into the underlying causes of death of the deceased in November and thus into the causes of excess mortality was not available to CBS until early April 2022. This motion can then be taken up and worked out further.'
Outgoing Minister Hugo de Jonge
There is a lot to be said about that. I will mention a few points.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 inthis 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.
In the meantime, after some skirmishes, a new answer has been formulated by the ministry (from page 50 in this pdf). The first paragraph is below in the screenshot.
First of all, the minister is trying to limit the investigation to November 2021. The motion was submitted at the beginning of December and requested figures up to and including the last complete month of that time (November). To narrow the motion to then, without consultation and after delaying tactics, is a tactic that again indicates the desire to limit prying eyes. It is certainly not a ministerial response or transparent cooperation of a scientific institute. But more has happened.
The core of the motion was that independent academic research should take place according to the excess mortality figures.
The minister describes the implementation of another motion (research by CBS) and says that he is implementing this motion...!?
The minister is not telling the truth when he says that he is implementing the Omtzigt motion by asking CBS for clarification. The point is that CBS cannot or does not want to do that or in any case: does not do it, and neither does the ministry. It is difficult to understand that the entire House does not fall over the minister indignantly.
If CBS discovers serious facts as a result of this 'assignment', they will acknowledge that they have been asleep for almost a year and are not concerned with the data as a description of society.
Fortunately, Pieter Omtzigt no longer agreed. In a new writing omtzigt he once again forces the new minister to face the facts.
In one paragraph, however, he gives a not-so-useful start, in my opinion. Omtzigt proposes to ask the KNAW for advice. By doing so, he lays out the red carpet for RIVM, which he did NOT want to carry out the research together with CBS itself.
Is the Academy really that independent, can it advise on the RIVM?
In an investigation such as this, any appearance of a conflict of interest must be avoided. This is not possible for the KNAW. Some examples:
interweaving 1
The RIVM Supervisory Committee is the committee that has checked the ins and outs (also during the corona crisis) and guarantees scientific integrity. Who are actually in that Commission? On the website we see that at least two members have been appointed by... the KNAW. Those two members will already have consulted with the KNAW about what that advice should look like and who can best be involved in such an investigation in order to limit the damage to some extent. After all, they have had two years to correct or intervene – and failed to do so, possibly with the same smug arrogance with which RIVM kicked aside the guidelines for scientific integrity. Guidelines drawn up by the KNAW. The other members of the Supervisory Committee of the RIVM have been appointed by... the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport.
interweaving 2
Three KNAW members have a decisive position in the OMT: Jaap van Dissel, Marion Koopmans and Menno de Jong. Is the Academy going to put its own members over the knee? After all, the excess mortality study will also show how responsible the OMT has acted, an OMT of which three members are members of the institute that is supposed to advise on an independent investigation. If the Academy accepts this assignment, they will not understand what scientific integrity is – or they have not explained it to me properly.
interweaving 3
In May 2021, the Academy will publish its medal of honour awarded to rivm director Jaap van Dissel. He was praised for his role in the corona crisis. The KNAW has already done its research, it is extremely satisfied with the approach. It would be a disgrace for the Academy if it turned out that they had awarded the medal of honour to someone who has given direction to a policy that, for example, has unnecessarily cost the lives of 8,000 people through unscientific action.
Pieter Omtzigt makes it a bit difficult for himself.
Jaap van Dissel, member of KNAW nominated members to the Rivm Supervisory Committee
OMT member Marion Koopmans, member of KNAW who nominates members to the Rivm Supervisory Committee
OMT member Menno de Jong, member of KNAW who nominates members for the Supervisory Committee of the rivm
