There is now a Updated and expanded version of this article, also published on Maurice.nl.
It has already come up several times, but I will dedicate a separate article to it: the non-mandatory reporting of death after vaccination. This is a requirement for using this unapproved product under EUA (Emergency Use Authorization):
Use of unapproved Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, authorized for emergency use only, is authorized provided that the vaccination provider is responsible for the mandatory reporting of serious adverse events, including death, regardless of attribution to vaccination.
Source: Pfizer Fact sheet
"Informed consent" is een andere voorwaarde, een die met propaganda is platgewalst. Of er überhaupt een noodgeval is valt ook te betwisten want de jeugd wordt zeker op dit moment vrijwel symptoomvrij natuurlijk geïmmuniseerd. Ik wil het hier alleen hebben over de meldingsplicht van overlijden na vaccinatie.
In order to build up a valuable database, conditions or deaths should ALWAYS be reported within a few weeks - a commonly used period is 28 days - after vaccination, regardless of whether a relationship with the vaccination is considered possible. This is a condition that is not being met. You can see that in the low number of reports. If the entire elderly population of about 4 million people over 60 has been vaccinated, there should have been many thousands of reports of mortality.
After all, about 2500 people over 60 die every week.
This should therefore have led to approximately 10,000 reports within 28 days after vaccination, assuming that they have all been vaccinated. And otherwise at least about 8,000.
There are only about 400 reports of death of people over 60 after vaccination, not 8,000.
Sources: Lareb, CBS
Lareb does not sound the alarm about this, I have never heard De Jonge say anything about it. The number of deaths reported to Lareb is less than 5% of the statistically expected deaths after vaccination. Are there perhaps an unusual number of heart or brain diseases in the remaining 95%? We will only know when it is so serious that something becomes visible in the CBS statistics. Targeted research may then show that there have been more brain/blood and heart-related deaths than normal. If it doesn't get out of hand, it is not noticeable in individual deaths.
The wording in the fact sheet alone: 'Verplicht melding van ernstige "bijwerkingen", even if you not toeschrijft aan vaccinatie' - maar hoezo zijn het dan bijwerkingen? Waarvan dan, waar schrijf je ze dan aan toe? Spontane herseninfarcten, trombose, hartfalen, vallen die onder "bijwerkingen"? Het wekt allemaal geen zorgvuldige indruk en juridisch geeft het alle ruimte voor het zaaien van twijfel.
Perhaps one day the privacy hurdle can be taken to link three databases: date of death, patient record (medical history), and date of vaccination. That shouldn't be a problem anonymously and then you suddenly know a lot more. But Lareb (i.e. government) reassures that there are so few reports. Data collection and analysis remains a huge sore point, but no one can do that better than the RIVM, according to the RIVM.
No control over the data
The data chaos is plaguing us from all sides. For example, Jaap van Dissel recently made it clear that the test results cannot now be a guideline because negative test results are not reported, only positive ones. This therefore does not provide a representative picture. But isn't he in control of the data himself...? If not, who? Then arrange it! And don't we have a corona app for which all test results are registered? Is it so difficult to add up the totals of positive and negative tests? And why doesn't the House ask about that? And why don't journalists put the rivm to shame? And why is it tolerated? 50 lawyers are hired om een manier te vinden om democratische WOB-verzoeken te kunnen weigeren? Het is een zootje, het is een chaos, het is een incompetent bang clubje dat voortdurend rare sprongen maakt. De kritiekloosheid daarop wordt ronduit angstwekkend.
