Excess mortality should be considered normal. It's now about whether you have the greatest excess mortality or -nice puh- less excess mortality than another country. At least that's how it seems, after a statement by someone in Bar laat, who apparently had slipped through the editorial screening. He claimed that the Netherlands had the most excess mortality in all of Europe. Of course that is not possible.
The Netherlands is not at the top, that's just not right. In the program itself, of course, all the 'journalists' are looking like rabbits in the headlights – no one has any clue. But: actually, such a thing should not be said in the media at all. Of course, that screening error at Bar Laat must be corrected immediately! Imagine, you miss a grant or you get penalty points from the medical-military complex or Ab Osterhaus gets angry! Who do you call as a fact-checker? The CBS!
CBS spokesperson Prof. dr. I.A. (Ruben) van Gaalen spoke about the position of the Netherlands in the European excess mortality competition, on Radio 1 at 'Feit of Fiction':
"If you calculate in a uniform way how high excess mortality was in that period (2020-2023), you see that the Netherlands is in the middle. It is certain that there was a lot of extra mortality, so the excess mortality was indeed there, but it is not the case that the Netherlands is at the top."
"There are many countries such as Portugal, Spain, England, the Czech Republic, Poland, Italy, Hungary, Romania and especially Bulgaria that had a much higher excess mortality in that period.
Belgium, Germany, Slovenia, Ireland, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark had lower excess mortality: the Netherlands is simply in between."
So much for Ruben van Gaalen's fact check. Let's take a look at the official figures on Eurostat. From the European Commission, of course, so completely unsuspected. 😉
Fact or fiction?
If we look at Eurostat, Ruben guessed right three times (the green bars) and 6 times wrong. He did not mention the blue bars.
He will also only go until (and including) 2023. But in the radio broadcast they talk about "the corona period", which was already over in 2022.
The figures up to and including November 2024 are now also available, so as an information officer he should certainly have included them. You want to keep the population informed, don't you. But in 2024 you will see that the Netherlands will only sink further into the pool of death. And that does not match the excess mortality reports of our government. So you keep that back. And the PR officials at the media park take it for granted. Because "it's an institution, isn't it?"
It is striking that both Malta and Cyprus will come out relatively much worse in 2024 than in 2023. Whatever the cause of the excess mortality, there could very well be an age-discriminatory effect.
About misfits Malta and Cyprus
Malta and Cyprus are very small countries (540,000 and 1.35m inhabitants). This makes the uncertainties surrounding mortality slightly greater. More importantly: both Cyprus and Malta have very few inhabitants under the age of 30, see the pyramid. That pumps up mortality rates, because in those age categories, almost no one died, which would have brought the average down if they had had more of it. Now you can make that visible with an age correction (ASMR). Then the excess mortality will become less dramatic, because then you pretend that those countries have much more youth. But then again, they just don't have one. So ASMR does help explain it, but it does not reduce excess mortality.
England (UK) is also mentioned, but that is no longer recorded in Eurostat. England has had a hard time under corona. To say that they are really still doing so much worse than the Netherlands since then, that is a matter of opinion of Dr. van Gaalen. 8% to 10% excess mortality. It is a difference but don't forget that it should be about 0% for both countries! That is the norm that matters, not the ranking in Europe.
But that's how we know our elites, especially the more left-leaning ones. A little gaslighting and telling half-truths is not a crime, if you want to reassure the population, right...? As a leading intellectual you take your responsibility and that mainly means that you keep the people quiet.
That's how Pieter Klok thinks about it too. (The recent interview with Ab Gietelink I haven't been able to watch out yet; I can't keep it up.)
The bridge with Fauci
Keeping the peace is - according to the people who know much better than we do - more important than being transparent and trying to get the truth out of the table. Lies and fabrications serve a higher purpose. That's how Fauci has justified his crimes. For himself that is. And one of his accomplices pardoned him, at least at the federal level. But each State can still initiate criminal prosecution independently. Let that party have started now. The Attorney-Generals of 17 states have put their heads together. That's what you get when you beat around the bush. Ruben, are you paying attention too?
Attorneys General of 17 U.S. States Join Forces: Fauci in Trial, Biden's Pardon Falls to Pieces
February 10, 2025
Attorneys General of 17 U.S. states are joining forces to investigate Dr. Anthony Fauci's role in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic and his intentions to prosecute him at the state level, outside of the protection of his federal pardon.
Under the leadership of South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, "the lawyers want to hold accountable for alleged mismanagement, misleading statements and suppression of scientific debate," according to a press release from Wilson's office.
While Dr. Fauci's federal pardon protects him from prosecution at the national level, it does not protect him from charges or civil lawsuits at the state level. The coalition of lawyers has made it clear that they are prepared to prosecute Fauci if violations of state law come to light.
The attorneys general formalized their intentions in a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, asking for full cooperation in prosecuting violations of state law related to Dr. Fauci's pandemic management.
"President Biden's blanket pardon for Dr. Fauci is a shameful attempt to evade accountability," P.G. Wilson said. "If these findings indicate violations of state law, we are fully prepared to take appropriate action to ensure that justice is done."
The letter from the PGs follows the publication of the final report of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. The report details significant errors and possible misconduct by senior officials, including Dr. Fauci.
The subcommittee's report cites Dr. Fauci's misleading public statements about the origins of COVID-19, mismanagement of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, and attempts to suppress scientific debate about the risks of vaccines. Fauci has:
- the lab leak theory discredited despite supporting evidence,
- misled Congress about the gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology funded by the NIH,
- overseen the NIH's mismanagement of taxpayer funds earmarked for the EcoHealth Alliance,
- suppresses scientific criticism regarding the safety of vaccines.
"Despite these findings, former President Joe Biden granted a broad pardon request to Dr. Fauci, exempting him from federal prosecution for any offenses he committed during his tenure," the press release said. "However, the attorneys general insist that this federal pardon does not preclude legal action at the state level."
You can read the full letter here.
The coalition has formally asked Congress to release all relevant findings from federal investigations that "could lead to investigations and potential prosecutions at the state level."
This unprecedented move underscores the growing calls for accountability in the wake of the pandemic and signals that, pardon or not, the legal probe into Dr. Fauci is far from over.
The Dutch version of the letter You can read about it here (The EN original is on pages 9-16)
Signatories letter:
Who gets the popcorn?
Thanks for the info 🙂
Tribunals! I can't wait.
Thanks again, Anton!
It all remains bizarre. Suppose the "vaccinations" or those who promote them had to appear in court and evidence is presented by the prosecution that they have done more harm than good.
The graphs above are indirect evidence that something is going on, but causation has not been demonstrated. The main reason that causal relationship has not been demonstrated is that it has never been investigated, so then you don't find out. If you don't shoot, you don't score. Moreover, there is not really another suspect. More people falling, the aging population? All guesswork, and also demonstrably nonsense. Moreover, it is very worrying that the extra deaths partly occur in younger age groups.
Another aspect that leads to the suspect 'vaccines' is the composition of the injections. Not only has it been proven that the LNPs go through the entire body, but there is also evidence that the injections can be contaminated with DNA, leftovers from the mass production process. Spike proteins that are produced by the mRNA by the own cells have been proven to be demonstrated up to six months after injection. Autopsies on sudden deaths have shown inflammation caused by the same proteins.
There are countries where vaccination victims are compensated, or worse, the relatives of vaccination victims are compensated. So there are side effects, serious side effects even. So serious that people die from it.
The defense then puts forward the argument that the side effects are 'very rare', and that the 'vaccines' have saved millions of lives. They don't get much further. An honest judge would then ask 2 questions:
1. What is the definition of 'very rare', and at what value does the risk become unacceptable? I haven't seen that question answered anywhere. The Pfizer papers showed 1 in 800, an absurdly high score (Serious side effects, no swollen spot that disappears after a day).
2. How has it been determined that millions of lives have been saved? How can you determine what would happen if you had not carried out a certain action (vaccine rollout)? The only way would be to compare a large control group of unvaccinated people with a corresponding vaccinated control group. That did not happen, because the necessary data is not available. The unvaccinated people in the Pfizer trial were later vaccinated for 'humanitarian' reasons. What remains is based on models. Models who were actually always wrong during the 'crisis'. Not a very strong argument.
Then it is also true that the 'vaccines' do not actually prevent transmission. In fact, people who are 'vaccinated' appear to have flu-like symptoms more often than unvaccinated people.
Of course, there is much more to say about it. But after the above considerations, a little judge would decide to stop the rollout until it is clear that the injections have been proven to be 'safe and effective'?
The fact that we are still muddling through probably says enough. Every attempt at real insight is trained. Keeping the peace, indeed.
Had to get it off my chest again
I can still believe that there was a positive balance above 70 or 80 (delta variant). But if we accept that the risk there is 10,000 times greater than with young people, anyone with common sense understands that they should never give it under a certain age and forced.
It's yellow simple. At the beginning of 2020, covid was at most twice as severe as the regular flu. But due to built-up immunity in 2020 and early 2021, covid had become an average flu. So healthy people under sixty should never have been vaccinated. Especially not with an as yet approved vaccine that was based on the Wuhan variant that had not been around for a year in May 2021.
Good piece again Anton.
I am curious about the sequel in America. Whether there are judges who dare to take up the gauntlet: they are not small guys who run things behind the scenes.
Finally: not a word about all this in our MSM.
But yes, you say it yourself: keep the peace above all else.
Strange that this now mainly comes from the left.
To see the level of (excess) mortality in Malta etc in a better perspective, you can compare the (excess) mortality figures with, for example, the period 2016-2019.
You can use the later figures to see to what extent lockdowns have contributed to (excess) mortality. In Sweden clearly the least and also had the fewest lockdown measures. But I think the vaccination rate was just as high as or slightly higher than in the Netherlands.
I don't think there are many hard conclusions to be drawn, unfortunately.
And the protocols, general practitioners sidelined in case of flu-like complaints, ban on medicines. Strange things also happened in the hospitals. And why does van Gaalen mention New Zealand where, according to him, there is no excess mortality while there is excess mortality in the years of the shots. Everyone knows someone who feels the need to whisper something, but the decent people among us neatly adhere to the standards of decency, including me. In 2020 I learned that people in the msm media received considerable amounts of money for statements sent from politics and intelligence services. Of course with silence (strangle) contracts. Support the people who stick their necks out with donations! The breaking point feels near. The evil ones are also a little too fond of war in the hope that we will no longer have time to go after the past, it seems.
How do you determine excess mortality if you don't compare with previous periods and which better perspective do you mean?
We have already written a lot about Sweden: lucky with batches (see earlier article), or well primed with the real thing (the real virus had already circulated) before they were vaccinated. Assessing Tegnell, I also secretly wonder if everyone in Sweden who was already immune is still vaccinated. But yes, we just have to speculate in the hope of stumbling upon something.
I mean that the population composition in Cyprus etc for 2020 is probably similar to from 2020. If that is the case and it turns out that they were also at the top of excess mortality at the time and, for example, the Scandinavian countries at the bottom, then the figures are less useful to make a connection between excess mortality due to vaccinations or late hospital visits. In Sweden, I also think that more massive natural immunity and therefore 15 to 20 times better immunity than by the shots has resulted in less mortality. Perhaps most of them were therefore more resistant to the shots in 2022 etc.
Furthermore, in Scandinavia, selenium is actively added to products or in agricultural land to ensure that people do not become selenium deficient. Because a deficiency of it makes you much more susceptible to flu etc.
See also: relationship selenium deficiency and severe corona Ghent University.
Sorry Pjotr but if they were also 'at the top of excess mortality' as you call it in 2015-2019, for example, that level would not be excess mortality now.
I don't write that. I mean: 'If they were also (by far) at the top then'.
Then the composition of the population also played a significant role in that top position (by far) and therefore also after 2020.
That is why it is interesting to make that comparison to disprove or confirm a few things.
It's literally there...
But which comparison do you mean? Excess mortality is by definition ALWAYS a comparison with expected mortality and such an expectation is always based on the past. It is also adjusted if it deviates too long under normal circumstances.
It is impossible that Scandinavian countries have had undermortality for about 10 years. That there are countries with excess mortality for 10 years is also not possible. By definition not, under normal circumstances. By then, the expectation would have been adjusted a long time ago.
Forget Sweden for a moment, but you may be able to include the selenium effect and the naturally built up resistance due to infections in future articles about why Swedes suffered less from corona and/or the vaccinations.
You can only say something about changing (excess) mortality after 2020 if you have the figures from before 2020. So if Cyprus etc. had a low mortality rate, for example due to the absence of the severe flu in 2018, that may partly explain the (extra) high excess mortality after 2020.
This new excess mortality discussion will probably have to do with a report by Gijs van Loef that was recently published on New Year's Eve (see website https://gijsvanloef.nl/).
These are the main findings of that report:
Conclusions of international figures:
>Nederland heeft de grootste oversterfte van West-Europa;
>Nederland vergrijst minder dan gemiddeld (‘minder meer ouderen’);
>Nederland heeft een verhoudingsgewijs achterblijvende levensverwachting;
>De resterende levensverwachting onder ouderen (65+/80+) is in Nederland korter dan elders;
>Nederland had in ’21 de laagste vaccinatiegraad;
Conclusions of the Netherlands specifically:
>Capaciteitstekorten in de zorg zijn overal
>Het Arbeidstekort was 10% in ‘23;
>Het Arbeidstekort in de (intensieve) ouderenzorg is mogelijk 12%;
>De grootste oversterfte is onder de meest kwetsbare 80+ers met een WLZ-indicatie.
Van Loef is interested in the subject of excess mortality from a different angle. He sees excess mortality mainly as an important indicator of the system performance of health care.
However, the report is also interesting for critics of the corona crisis, such as us. That also provides (new) factual information.
The healthcare policy has certainly not helped. Unfortunately, he does not explain (or I missed it) how it suddenly changed in the second half of 2021 and is now getting better again painfully slowly. I think that's an important one.
I don't know if he can also demonstrate that pressure on healthcare can have this impact, it actually seems stiff to me. The vaccines, on the other hand, have been shown to be able to cause this mortality – but whether that is indeed the case we don't know...
De gegevens die Gijs van Loef verzameld heeft uit internationale bronnen m.b.t. oversterfte, kloppen volgens mij. Hij gaat echter de mist in bij het duiden van deze data, vooral bij de effecten van vaccinatie en de oorzaken van oversterfte gaat het mis. De door van Loef zelf berekende indicator voor gemiddelde vaccinatie in 2021 en 2022 is bijvoorbeeld onzinnig en misleidend.
Maar zijn stelling dat we, voor de verklaring van oversterfte, naar de bijzondere eigenschappen van ons zorgsysteem moeten kijken, deel ik. Dat is namelijk ook direct, onafhankelijk van de dubieuze analyses, uit de verzamelde cijfers goed te motiveren. Uit de data van 14 West-Europese landen blijkt namelijk:
1. Er zijn in West-Europa 6 landen met de hoogste oversterfte in 2020;
2. Er zijn in West-West-Europa 7 landen met de hoogste oversterfte in 2022;
3. In de meeste landen uit groep 1 is 2022 het jaar met het een na hoogste niveau;
4. In geen enkel land van groep 2 is 2020 het jaar met het een na hoogste niveau.
Conclusie: uit 1-4 blijkt dat 2022 het cruciale jaar is v.w.b. oversterfte internationaal.
Voorts blijkt echter uit diezelfde gegevens van van Loef:
5. De oversterfte in Nederland is niet in groep 1 of 2 te rangschikken. De variatie over de 5 jaren in NL is heel gering. Eigenlijk hetzelfde beeld dus v.w.b. de totale sterfte in NL, die vrij stationair rond de 170K-171K ligt in het tijdvak 2020-2024.
Nederland is echter de enige vreemde eend in de bijt van 14 landen. Juist het feit dat het verloop van (over)sterfte in 2020-2024 in NL zowel atypisch is in de vergelijking met andere landen als ook atypisch is in de eigen historie van sterfte in NL (kijk maar naar tijdreeksen uit het verleden) leidt onontkoombaar tot de conclusie dat:
6.Specifiek nationale systeemkenmerken van de huidige gezondheidszorg in NL moeten worden meegenomen in de verklaring van de oversterfte.
Q.E.D.
Er is dus in Nederland een aanhoudende hoge, vrijwel stationaire, oversterfte in de gezondheidszorg in 2020-2024 (lijkt wel een ‘5-jaren plan’). In geen enkel ander land in West-Europa doet deze situatie zich voor. We zijn vooral in de laatste jaren het slechtst presterende land, omdat bij ons de oversterfte hoog bleef en deze elders flink daalde.
Gijs van Loef wijst op de nijpende tekort-situaties en marktwerking in de zorg als mogelijk verklaring van het blijvend slechte presteren van Nederland.
Maar is dit wel juist? In Duitsland waren er geen tekorten maar overschotten in de de zorg, maar was er toch een flinke oversterfte. Thans is men daar bezig de overcapaciteit af te bouwen. Waarom is er niet massaal werk uitbesteed van Nederland aan Duitsland tijdens de COVID-crisis, als tekorten in NL het probleem waren?
Verder werd juist de ‘marktwerking’ in NL bij het begin van de COVID-crisis (deels) weer buiten werking gesteld door centrale sturing door VWS en het kabinet. Eerder lijkt een verkeerd gerichte marktwerking een probleem te zijn: een hoge sterfte als wanprestatie wordt blijkbaar onvoldoende in de tarieven en budgettering van actoren in de zorg afgestraft. Als de budgetten van ziekenhuizen, verpleeg- en zorghuizen, huisartspraktijken, en uiteraard ook het budget van VWS sterk negatief zouden correleren met een hoge sterfte, was er dan ook zo’n hoge oversterfte geweest in 2020-2024? Misschien eens kritisch kijken naar al die financieringsarrangementen rond overlijden en COVID-19 in de zorg?
Die zorgcapaciteitsproblemen (if any, ik zie er niet zoveel van) hebben niets te maken met bijvoorbeeld die sterfte onder vrouwen tussen 40-50 jaar en omvallende zestigers. En “onontkoombaar” weet ik niet: we kunnen ook gewoon pech gehad hebben met verkeerde batches in het begin, kapotte of verkeerde koeling, whatever… Zie het artikel waarin batches worden vergeleken (Zweden vs Denemarken meen ik).
Maar natuurlijk moet die zorgfactor ook meegenomen worden in het onderzoek. Maar ja, welk onderzoek?
Alles wat er tot nu toe qua zorg is onderzocht verklaart nog geen 20% van de oversterfte – en dan schat ik heel ruim.