Immunologist Theo Schetters from In The Other Newspaper of this week zijn zorgen over het toenemend aantal overlijdens waarvan de oorzaak onbekend blijft. Sinds 2021 — het jaar van de vaccinatiecampagnes — is het aantal ontbrekende doodsoorzaakverklaringen explosief gestegen. In 2023 waren het er zo'n 5800. That is the number of a severe flu. And in 2024 we were already at the beginning of November 7535. This is no longer an administrative incident, that's a trend.
CBS says that they are "Probably administrative causes". Schetters calls that explanation "not satisfactory." That is putting it mildly. Let's take a closer look at how CBS justifies this abuse, which has been going on for several years.1Trends in mortality and causes of death 2014-2024
"een toename van 14 per 100 duizend in 2014 naar 33 per 100 duizend in 2023. Het totale aantal ontbrekende verklaringen in 2023 bedroeg 5 854."
Zo rapporteert het CBS cijfers. Alsof het een stijging is die gedurende 10 jaar heeft plaatsgevonden. Maar dat is een verdraaiing van de cijfers. Het is misrepresentatie. Van datafraude is geen sprake: de data en de grafiek kloppen wel maar ze vertellen er gewoon een ander verhaal bij. Dat is wat er in NIVEL en UMCU-onderzoeken ook gebeurt. Iemand die wijst op deze grove wetenschappelijke integriteitsschending (om het dan geen 'liegen' te noemen) wordt verwezen naar het officiële wetenschappelijke discours. En daarin hebben de instituten het nu eenmaal voor het zeggen. Die kunnen Informatie Units oprichten en subsidiëren om de officiële duidingen kracht bij te laten zetten.
Wat zien we in de grafiek: Van 2014 tot en met 2020 was het aantal "ontbrekend/overig" heel licht stijgend. Misschien een symptoom van het toenemende 'zorginfarct' waardoor formaliteiten erbij inschieten, wie zal het zeggen.
And suddenly, in 2021, that horizontal line appears to have snapped upwards to become higher and higher in the following years.
"Overige": doodsoorzaak #3
It is therefore not a development from 2014-2024 as Statistics Netherlands makes it appear. It is a trend that started in the year that vaccination started: 2021. What a coincidence again.
We see an increase of more than 16% in three years. That is very different from a development over the last 10 years. They are jocks.
So the CBS claims in succession that the rising trend of other/unknown
- is probably due to an increase in missing forms
- started in 2014 (long-term increase, has nothing to do with 2021, ed.)
- started in 2019 (to link it to digitization, ed.)
This is not about overdue forms that eventually fall into place. This is data that will continue to be missing permanently. Apparently there is no control, no responsibility. They are just gone. And no one asks about it.
Als je zo'n administratief probleem signaleert moet je toch wel een verdomd goede reden hebben om dat jarenlang te laten sloffen. Hoe kun je jezelf nog presenteren als dataleverancier, als je de verzameling ervan niet eens op orde hebt?
In 2023, we already wrote an article in which this issue was also highlighted2What do causes of death say about excess mortality? . It already became clear that causes of death are no longer an a priori reliable source of insight at CBS when it comes to something as sensitive as a possible connection with medical interventions, with registration as an underlying problem.
Also remember that monitoring EUA vaccinations (allowed under emergency conditions) is a strict requirement.
Iatrogenic causes of death as ICD-10 codes
Within the ICD-10 (the International Classification of Diseases, version 10), there are indeed codes for iatrogenic (letterlijk: 'door een arts veroorzaakte') Disorders and Side effects of vaccinations. An overview of relevant codes can be found below in the fold-out.
🩺 Iatrogenic disorders
T80–T88: Complications of medical and surgical care, not elsewhere classified
- T88.0: Infection after immunization
- T88.1: Other complications after immunization, not elsewhere classified
- T88.7: Undesirable effect of correctly administered medication or biological substance
- T88.9: Indeterminate complication of medical and surgical care n.e.c.
Y40–Y84: Medication and medical procedures as a cause of abnormal clinical conditions
This is the chapter for iatrogenic causes.
- Y59.0–Y59.9: Vaccines as a cause of side effects
- Y60–Y69: Accidents during medical care
- Y83–Y84: Surgical and medical procedures as a cause of abnormal reactions or subsequent complications, without error in execution
💉 Vaccination side effects
There are explicit codes for side effects from vaccines. These fall under:
T88.0 / T88.1 / Y59.0–Y59.9
- T88.0: Infection after immunization
- T88.1: Other complications after immunization
- Y59.-: Vaccines and biological substances as a cause of side effects
- Y59.0: BCG vaccine
- Y59.1: Polio vaccine
- Y59.9: Indeterminate vaccines
There is (still) no specific ICD-10 code for mRNA vaccines or COVID-19 vaccines. These would be Y59.9 of T88.1 depending on the country and the registration practice. Well, who categorizes that hodgepodge neatly so that it can be calculated? If you fragment it enough, it will all remain noise.
What does ChatGPT say about practice?
In practice, doctors rarely use a iatrogenic or vaccine-related code if Primary cause of death. Often, symptoms (such as myocarditis, embolism, cerebral hemorrhage) are registered under their own codes, without explicitly mentioning the underlying cause (e.g. a vaccine), such as Y59.9 and T88.7. The iatrogenic factor then disappears into the context or afterthought — or is not mentioned.
Tot zover de duiding door CBS en het invullen van het formulier. Maar dan: het borgen van correcte registratie. Hoe gaat dat eigenlijk? Daar zit een stukje logistiek aan vast. Als ik tegen de belastingdienst zou zeggen "Die ontbrekende facturen komen door een administratieve transitie" denk ik niet dat zij daar genoegen mee zullen nemen. Het CBS daarentegen heeft er geen probleem mee. In dit geval dan.
The logistics chain is rattling on all sides
Het is verbijsterend simplistisch. Een arts vult na overlijden het zogeheten B-formulier in met de doodsoorzaken, vaak in overleg met de nabestaanden want zo'n (dienstdoende) arts weet het ook niet altijd. Dat formulier moet bij de gemeente of bij de GGD terechtkomen -of via de gemeente bij de GGD- en van daaruit belandt het bij het CBS. Is dat transport een taak van de arts of van de uitvaartdienst? Van de nabestaande(n)? De arts weet zelden wie de uitvaartverzorger is, hij kent de overledene misschien niet eens. De uitvaartverzorger weet niet of er een B-formulier is of dat de arts dat heeft meegenomen. En niemand controleert of het formulier ooit aankomt.
There is no acknowledgement of receipt and there are no audited obligations for intermediaries. The form arrives or it does not arrive at CBS. Even if it doesn't arrive very often, it only becomes apparent when someone starts looking at the graphs.
Poor IT implementation comes in handy
According to CBS, these now tens of thousands(!) of missing forms are "probably the result of digitization processes."
"De stijging in het aantal ontbrekende doodsoorzaakverklaringen hangt [...] waarschijnlijk samen met procesmatige veranderingen in het aanleveren, zoals veranderingen door het digitaliseringsproces"
Website CBS
Of course that could be. Especially if the paper form had been abolished, but it is not. After all, on the CBS site we read that the transition is taking place step by step. That doesn't make it easy to check it unambiguously: one way, the other that. The IT functionality was first made available to general practitioners and doctors working at the GGDs (who organized the vaccination lanes, remember, among other things) and gradually more and more doctors are given the opportunity to submit the B form digitally as well.
This digitization was supposed to improve speed and reliability, but remarkably enough, the number of missing cause-of-death certificates has actually increased since then. The CBS explains this with "changes in processes" and points to the transitional phase in which not all doctors are equally familiar with the new system. That same 'transition' now temporarily functions as a handy narrative to explain lost or never sent forms.
Especially now that there is social unrest about unexplained excess mortality, and the sensitivity around vaccination-related deaths is increasing, a situation is emerging in which disappearing forms are not only possible, but also sound plausible. Doctors and GGDs who are reluctant to mention a possible iatrogenic cause of death can "lose" the form even more easily. There is no control and the excuse is already ready.
Maar dat "via digitale weg", is dat de dokter met zijn mobieltje bezig naast het sterfbed? Of maakt hij aantekeningen en gaat hij later die nacht, via de beveiligde verbinding van zijn praktijk inloggen (paswoord bij de hand natuurlijk) om het B-formulier in te vullen, nadat hij zijn toch al verstikkende administratie heeft bijgewerkt?
Something is clearly not going well, as evidenced by the increase from 2021. Other/Unknown is on its way to becoming the second cause of death. So why doesn't CBS intervene? And certainly not if there is a trend that has been going on since 2014 and since 2019 and with a counterproductive digitization? It's 2025 now!
The elephant in the doctor's office
Theo Schetters also dares to say it out loud: this pattern coincides exactly with the rollout of the mRNA vaccination campaigns. Is it conceivable that doctors and certainly GGDs could hesitate to link a death to an intervention that they themselves (perhaps also the doctor in question) have strongly recommended? Who knows.
It's almost like encouraging Russian terrorists to leave their passports after committing an attack.
Hoe gemakkelijk is het om het formulier "even te laten liggen" of "vergeten mee te geven". Of in een envelop te doen, op tafel te leggen bij een rouwende nabestaande, met de boodschap: "U moet dit nog even inleveren, alleen voor de statistiek hoor." ("Dokter, weet u wat u met uw statistiek kunt...!?") Or you find it months later at the bottom of your doctor's bag. Thousands of forms disappear, perhaps not through sabotage but through non-commitment, and the system that identifies it allows it. It has to be in an envelope because the family is not allowed to see if it is correct. Privacy, huh, because of the funeral.
The consequences
The impact on the narrative around excess mortality is obvious. How can you still claim that mortality is "not due to vaccinations", when so many causes of death are simply unknown and that number has been rising since the vaccination of an injection provided under emergency conditions? While those causes of death should be reported by those who enthusiastically rolled out the vaccines? How can you rely on data from an ever-growing chain?
As long as the B forms disappear, the connections and therefore the urgency also disappear. You don't have to explain what you don't see. Not only does the excess mortality remain unexplained, but we get the unexplained increase in "unknown/other" for free. And that increase will undoubtedly continue in 2025, if nothing is done about it.
What is actually wrong with making it mandatory that the B form is submitted to the municipality together with the A form, and having the civil servant sign for receipt? Then you at least know where it got lost.
Just do it!
Further down the rabbit hole
Replacement
Kijk, ergens in de "Overige oorzaken" zit ook "Infecties exclusief Covid-19". Er zijn een hoop infecties weggebleven dankzij Covid, tot in 2022 toe. Het geeft maar weer eens de rol van Covid als vervangingsziekte aan. Veel Covid-doden waren in een ander jaar als "Infecties" in de boeken gekomen. Zie het werk van Herman Steigstra if you want to read more about this.
Gender transition?
As a reminder, this graph again. We see here that women die more often from other causes than men. CBS treats the following other causes:
- Diseases digestion, metabolism
- Infectious diseases excluding Covid
- Missing explanations
- Unknown cause of death (on form)
Als ik die vier aandachtsgebieden bij elkaar optel als "Totaal genoemde oorzaken" dan zie ik iets interessants.
We are at different totals in 2023.
De grafiek van CBS geeft 175/100K in 2023. Onze optelling komt tot 112/100K. Er is dus nog éénderde van de "overige doodsoorzaken" waarvan we niets weten. Het wordt niet eens genoemd.
More importantly: Toch zou ik dat wel interessant vinden, vooral omdat in de CBS-grafiek meer vrouwen dan mannen in de overige doodsoorzaken voorkomen. Terwijl optelling van de behandelde "overige oorzaken" meer mannen dan vrouwen laat zien.
Welke gendertransitie wordt er in dat overige derde deel uitgevoerd die dat beeld doet omkeren...?
Who dives into that? Further investigation seems appropriate to me.
Just kidding
I also noticed it in the lost cause of death forms: consistently, every year, for 10 years, there are more male deaths missing than female ones.
How is that possible!?
Een aantal scenario's schoot door mijn hoofd, maar vrouwen eindigen misschien vaker in het verzorgingstehuis en die hebben daar een protocol voor.
Hoe dan ook: aan de nabestaanden die het thuis verkeerd doen, ligt het in elk geval niet. Dan zouden er immers meer vrouwelijke formulieren zoek zijn 😉
Footnotes
- 1
- 2
By Jove! (Voor de kenners)
🙂
CBS=POLITIEK.
https://youtu.be/y2v-b_HY_qA?si=kww5JRVmTGHaEUBj
If Chat says so... . They are there but are not mentioned as a primary cause if they are used anyway.
(While the suspicion of Covid or the possibility of co-cause was already sufficient to consider Covid 19 as the cause of death)
In the preferred context of SAFE and Effective, iatrogenic vaccine damage is in the dark and does not occur or hardly occurs and fatal damage is completely unthinkable.
PSYOP successful vaccine victim died (unnoticed).
The next of kin receives a sealed envelope, containing the form stating the cause of death, from the medical examiner. The next of kin must hand in this envelope to the municipality. If the envelope were open, it would be clear to the next of kin what the official cause of death would be. Not now. (so-called privacy)
If the envelope has to go to the municipality, why not hand it in together with the A form? After all, that A form has to go to the municipality.
Traditionally, the B form did not have to go to the municipality. It had to go to the GGD.
The envelope can also be taken by the funeral service. Where and how they keep the envelopes and how often they send their stack to the GGD differs per organization – and how it suits them.
Of course, the doctor can also arrange it himself, with the paper form.
Or he does it digitally.
They often don't know who did what from each other. "No form? Then the doctor will arrange it."
… and it's gone.
The trend in the number of cardiovascular diseases has been declining for years. The actual number has been far above that since 2021. With the help of mathematics, it is not difficult to calculate which part of the "unknown causes" essentially involves heart failure. If we add that to the official figures, the number of deaths continues to rise, while we had expected a decrease. Okay, but that will be due to Covid I often hear... Then that trend should have been reversed by 2020. But it happened in the following year.
I believe that the less and less frequent reporting of the cause of death is indeed an administrative problem.
Multatuli wrote about this (in 1871!):
'Indifference, carelessness, slowness, are opponents who make the truth more shrunk than deliberate deceit.
Humanity is too weak to be evil.'
However, the fact that CBS itself is satisfied with this explanation and does not conduct any further research speaks volumes.
Multatuli continues:
'At most, it [Humanity] knows how to introduce itself to the artificial maintenance of once existing wrong concepts that yield a visible advantage.'
According to Multatuli in 1871.
I think little has changed in 150 years!
Question that remains open is the following:
What is the apparent benefit for CBS?
-You have to know the cause of that.
So, what could be an explanation for the less frequent reporting of the cause of death bin CBS
Should you immediately take the most sinister explanation for this (they want to mask the excess mortality of vaxx!)
Or should you leave it mysteriously in the middle what the cause is (a mystery!)
Or do you use Ockham's razor?
(that when there are several hypotheses that can explain a phenomenon equally, the one that contains the fewest assumptions and assumes the least number of entities should be chosen).
I'm for Ockham's razor.
So what's the explanation according to Ockham's razor?
At the end of 2021, the digital cause of death form was introduced. This would relieve the doctor of administrative work, which is of course nonsense, anyone who is allowed to fill in digital forms for insurances, banks, municipalities, etc. knows.
And so that form is increasingly NOT filled in. There will also probably be all kinds of uncertainty about the extent to which the cause of death form has or has not been delivered to CBS by post or digitally, which also creates a chance of missing data.
You may wonder why the digital reporting of the cause of death has been introduced at CBS. The bottom line there will be: because it is cheaper to appoint a computer than an employee who has to manually check causes of death.
And so CBS brings about its own demise with the cause of death statistics with its own introduced 'apparent advantage'. Not sinister, not mysterious, but stupid.
Incidentally, this explanation is not entirely satisfactory, because the actual introduction of digital reporting of the cause of death was on 1 January 2022, while 'the kink' already seemed visible in 2021.
See: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/deelnemers-enquetes/decentrale-overheden/overzicht/doodsoorzaakverklaring
Not at all! In 2021, CBS wrote: "The transition is taking place step by step. Currently (in 2021), the IT functionality is available to general practitioners and doctors working at the GGDs. It is expected that in the first half of 2022, more and more doctors will have the option of submitting the B form digitally as well." so it was already there in 2021 at all GGDs!
The point is that with a new procedure you wait a while and try to make adjustments if things don't go well, I understand that. But we are now 4 years later.
Maybe it saves them a lot of work and they don't get paid a penny less, that doesn't help either, of course.
By the way, you use more assumptions than I do. There has been excess mortality since 2021. Fact. Desperate attempts are being made to keep vaccination willingness high: data is mangled and misinterpreted, woo studies are sabotaged, disinformation campaigns, cancelling, you name it. And then it would be a stretch if I see a data institute messing up its data collection, precisely on causes of death that could debunk or confirm all those lies, without lifting a finger. Now that I put it like this: what assumption am I actually making?
Multatuli also chokes sometimes. Weak and bad are not opposites, rather synonyms. Officials only have to be lazy and lab-broken to harm people. Or not to see the priority; after all, it is not in their interest. Are they 'bad' people or average people?
Then I have a question: why does it "so increasingly" not happen? Why this permanent increase? Isn't there another assumption behind that? 😉
Unnamed is Non-Existent
Just some wild thoughts.
Wonder if medical treatment resulting in death is a recognized category. Doesn't seem so. While fatal iatrogenic medical treatment, I believe, is now the third cause of death.
https://www.medischcontact.nl/actueel/laatste-nieuws/artikel/internist-gotzsche-medicijnen-zijn-de-derde-doodsoorzaak
Assuming that this is not done with premeditation and intent, the categories of murder and manslaughter are excluded.
It seems to me that this does fall into the category of non-natural causes of death and if a (canoskeletal) doctor has established this (for example in the case of a fatal vaccination), this should, as I understand, be formally submitted to the GGD doctor who must report this as such to CBS if approved.
The failure of the GGD doctor to report to CBS (as I understand he can already do this digitally from 2021) would be more than sloppy in this case. (Of course I don't know if something similar happened or if this option was an option anyway. It does not seem so, given the absence of non-natural causes of death in the list. As a result, a possible report stalls here. In my opinion, he should be there).
That which remains unnamed simply does not exist.
The medical profession retains its sacred halo in this omission. Perhaps desirable among doctors, but not in the public interest.
Under the heading 'What does ChatGPT say...' Are those codes right? They are real! You can also look them up yourself.
Is dit ook een optie: bij twijfel (aan het vaccin) niet invullen.
Haha, geniaal in z’n eenvoud!
Zeker, al is er ook de optie om “onbekend” in te vullen op het formulier.