Two weeks ago we predicted that Bulgaria, which is poorly vaccinated, could on balance emerge from the corona period in a better position. That was based on OurWorldinData figures: Excess mortality in the Covid pandemic. In a LighthouseTV broadcast, presenter Gerry asked me whether the data for 2024 had not yet been received. The answer I gave was not correct, I saw when I looked back. I was confused with the age breakdowns and causes of death, which was also covered. Those breakdowns will indeed come much later, but the total excess mortality figures simply had to be there...!? So take a good look again. Thanks to Gerry van der Laan.
In the comments on youtube and on X wordt er gesproken over "bullshit grafiek", "warrig verhaal", "sukkels", "wappie-veronderstellingen", "iedereen kan stippellijntjes tekenen", gelardeerd met gifjes van alu-hoedjes, giechelende dames van kleur en dergelijke. De gebruikelijke consensus-argumenten. Ze hadden ook gewoon dieper in de data kunnen duiken. Wij hebben dat dus wel gedaan. En zij misschien ook maar waarom schermen ze daar dan niet mee? Dat zien we zo.
What was wrong
In the previous article we only looked at the data "Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)" and it will indeed be cut off after 2023. Then the pandemic will really be over, according to OWID.
But OWID also has another overview page: "Excess mortality: Deaths from all causes compared to average over previous years". That is this Chart 2.
And indeed: it will last until 2025!
Without dotted lines
Below is another representation of the available data: now as the average percentage since 1-1-2020. So each point in a line is the average from January 1, 2020 through that week. The similarity with graph 1 is clear. In that graph, each point is also an average of the surrounding weeks, so the early peaks in particular stand out more in graph 3.
We have not included the under-mortality rates for BUL and NL that preceded Covid. Bulgaria was at -19% at the time, I don't want to give the impression that Bulgaria is doing better as a result.
Bulgaria even beats Germany, the country without deferred care. But that's for a next article.
This is the picture if we also include the under-mortality at the beginning of 2020.
Thanks again for this!
Bulgaria is winning on several fronts
Australia seems to have dropped out of the competition (afraid of the doping test?). Would like to test the hypothesis to see whether they ultimately come out worst.
It is also remarkable that Bulgaria has recently become the top scorer in Europe in terms of fertility (TFR). And that the Netherlands and Australia have seen a significant decline in recent years. Australia even has an all-time low, in 2023 (Ask chatgpt).
Also interesting in this regard is this interview with Naomi Wolf
https://youtu.be/9UX5rsgMlEE?si=KI0q_k6YW5fZxBU2
Fortunately, Kennedy ultimately advised against use in healthy pregnant women and children:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/27/rfk-jr-covid-vaccine-kids-pregnant-women
Stay here waiting for a strong westerly wind.
We have to make that wind ourselves! Waiting is not good. Unfortunately, Kennedy gives permission for MRI injection research with a placebo group, but if one delves deeper into the papers, it turns out that the placebo group first receives 1 injection and the second is a placebo (other group, so 2 injections). These tests are also with vaxxed people and who says that different stuff is not used than what comes on the market, just like the previous trials. Check out dfacto.nu's latest weekly overview of Jeroen and Willem. Articles like here are proof enough in my opinion. And also clearly visible in practice. We were recently at a cemetery to commemorate our own corona (injection) victims and even we were shocked by the enormous number of new graves, mainly with dates of birth between 1955 and 1975.
Hi Anton,
I did see you. at Lighthouse and completely agree with you. But the Bulgarians were fools for allowing the (even deeper than in the Netherlands) under-mortality in 2019 to push into the excess mortality in the Corona waves. Those are those huge bumps. for sure. If only they had had Ivermectin in stock. Are there other countries where the same pattern shows?
Thanks to my Bulgarian wife, I never got vaccinated. After 44 years of communism, Bulgarians know that governments cannot be trusted and that you should never just believe anything. Bulgarians trust each other much more than they trust authorities. Soon after the first vaccinations, stories circulated that the vaccinations could lead to very serious side effects. Here in the Netherlands, everyone immediately lined up, especially the highly educated (the more educated, the dumber it seems). The result has been visible for several years: excess mortality.
Good to hear, Lars, but why not protect yourself in a different way?
Anton and Herman's data analysis shows that many Bulgarians have succumbed to Corona itself. It was known quite quickly that there were alternatives to the treatment, certainly before the 2nd wave.
It seems like a hard lesson for the Bulgarians, while a majority still looks away.
Good question. They already had bad grades pre-corona. Personally, I don't get much further than speculating on "quality of care" or nutrition. It couldn't have been low vaccination rates; it was worse there than in other countries when no one had been vaccinated in 2020. Maybe hygiene or something, vitamin D deficiency?
Do you (or your wife) know anything about that, Lars, what primary care is like there, for example? You must have followed the situation there with horror, if your family lived there, I think.
Hi Anton,
I took a look at Worldometers, which I had kept track of in Excel until 2021. If you believe the allocation of causes, almost all countries in the top 10 deaths per 1 million inhabitants are Balkan countries. Only Serbia stands out favorably. Peru is far in the lead (6600) followed by Bulgaria (5600). The Netherlands is 87th with more than 1300.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
There are many good doctors in Bulgaria. Only the very best are allowed to study medicine. The level there is much higher than in the Netherlands. But the supply of good doctors is almost exclusively limited to the big cities. General health is poor. A lot of people smoke and drink. There is also a lot of poverty and, especially in the villages, little access to good primary care. I am not surprised that so many people have died from Corona. In my opinion, little resistance and poor care are largely to blame for this. But despite the fact that the Bulgarians generally lead a fairly unhealthy life, they will easily win the match with the West. Thanks to a healthy distrust in the government and foreign institutions such as the WHO.
There are no good doctors because the training is inadequate, the sponsorship consists of conflicting interests and people are no longer allowed to think for themselves. The good doctors have been persecuted since 2020 and those who are still working will disappear with time. I look at that with horror! Take a reliable first aid course and become as self-reliant as possible and remain critical!
Very good Lars, that mistrust. Hope they keep that up!
Could that be less or no access to the right information? Despite distrust, did you become fearful and run with the herd (a large part of the world's population)? And too little resistance due to unhealthy lifestyle, etc., anyway.
What ultimately counts in the long term (if you ignore the economic damage caused by lock downs, etc.!) is the area under the graph.
And then Bul clearly scores better than Aus. And apparently still better than NL.
I think that these countries are so incomparable (climate, healthcare, initial health status, etc.), that it is difficult/not that useful to make a (fair) competition out of this...
I just heard on the Lighthouse video that the graphs are already “cumulative graphs”. If you read the text above very carefully, it also says that... But unfortunately not if you read it quickly.
OK, if that's true, then it makes things very different. It would be good to include "Cum. excess mortality" or something similar in the title of the graph. to write….. And indeed: then Bul wins.
I'm honestly not sure how a real percentage cumulative chart works.
That's why I wrote down what I did: for each date the average percentage from January 1, 2020 to that date is shown. A kind of dynamic moving average. Can that be called “cumulative”? You know that better than I do 😉 If I use a term incorrectly, I will have statistical language Nazis after me in no time!
This honesty is to your credit, Anton. I think you have interpreted the figures correctly and Jan vd Zanden confirms that. Lars has already indicated that the health of Bulgarians outside the cities is dire, but their distrust, as a nation, of the authorities has saved them from worse.
Considering the graph on the website (https://virusvaria.nl/en-de-winnaar-is-inderdaad-bulgarije/, Chart 3) shows a cumulative average of the excess mortality rates per week from 1-1-2020 until the current date, the most appropriate English scientific term is:
“Cumulative average excess mortality percentage plot”
Explanation:
“Cumulative”: Because the graph adds or averages the data over time from a starting point (1/1/2020).
“Average”: Because it is not simply the sum, but the average percentage over the period up to the current date.
“Excess mortality percentage”: Specific to the dataset, which shows excess mortality percentages.
“Plot”: Standard term in scientific context for a graph.
Alternatives that are also correct, but slightly less specific:
“Cumulative mean excess mortality graph” (minder nadruk op percentage).
“Running average excess mortality plot” (if you want to emphasize that it is a moving average).
The term “Cumulative average excess mortality percentage plot” is the most accurate and fits well with the context of Our World in Data and the description on the website. If you want a shorter term for a broader audience, you can use “Cumulative excess mortality graph”, but this loses some precision over the “average” aspect.
Dixit “Grok AI”. I agree 100%.
Dear Jan vd Zanden, I highly doubt whether these are cumulative excess mortality graphs. Herman and Anton use that principle to represent the absolute excess mortality per season (July to June). You rarely see those for percentages. I am a big supporter of the CUSUM technique. We developed it in our company for process control, to get rid of the mistakes in the lab, which only disrupted our process results.
I think you are right in pointing out the integral of the percentage excess mortality over time.
I changed it to “Running average excess mortality percentage plot”. For me, cumulative associates too much with addition and subtraction. This is more of a “running average” for my taste.
Thanks for the help both!
And Jan: that CUSUM, isn't that what we do with those cumulative excess mortality graphs? Add the deviations from the baseline – and subtract them again if the deviation is below it?
He is cumulatively average. You can see this from the fact that the peaks are strongly flattened. And the further you go in time, the more flattened the peaks become.
Agree that you almost never see this with percentages. But my Grok AI knew what to do with it, so it happens quite often.
I think it is a good presentation method to make it clear relatively (rather than absolutely, so regardless of the size of the population, etc.) what the long-term effect is. So in this case it fits perfectly. But due to the lack of a good title and reading too quickly, I found it confusing. It has now been neatly resolved by Anton.
Exactly Anton; I also mentioned that at the beginning. If you use the correct target value, CUSUM also shows what interventions or sudden influences do as a measure (if not working).
The new world with Prof. Pierre Capel: in 58 countries, residents always receive preventive i ver mec Tine against, among other things, river blindness. It is made in Haarlem and donated via, among others, who. Google and you will find. I.v.m. censorship, I write this in an unclear way. Are there any figures for these 58 countries on how they have been “dangerous” in the past 6 years with regard to the above? Who is the winner then? Pierre Capel (whom I have a very high opinion of and from whom I have received a lot of support) speaks highly of i ver mec Tine in combination with other stuff, even good effect against tumors. It is not completely harmless because coffee, for example, increases efficacy and too high a dose can be harmful in my opinion, but with the right advice it could still be life-saving and perhaps stop some of the excess mortality? So in that combination I am also curious about the figures in those 58 countries and in comparison with the countries that have already been compared.
I already watched it four years ago in this article.
That was four years ago. And the winner is? Has an injection been made and if so, with which injection? And is there less cancer in countries with i ver mec Tine? Less cardiovascular disease? Undermortality? Not including living conditions, because it is almost impossible anyway what you Anton and others estimate above water. Many thanks again! My smallest grandchildren will soon have to ask many additional questions of future relationships if a solution is not found quickly to undo as much damage as possible from the injections their mothers (and fathers) took. The eldest grandchildren do not have many children who have been injected, about 5%, but still... Failure to recognize the damage stands in the way of a solution. With sick adults I say a maximum of twice, take a look... I usually get back "I trust my doctors or my doctor does not support it (no protocol)". Getting recognition, for now I'm going to continue speaking out and pushing the information with graphs from this site under people's noses.