Both NSC and PVV read virus varia. Yes! So I'm not just hitting the air. As Mattias Desmet says: when you speak, something changes. Go ahead then, it's a straw but at least it's something. At the bottom of this article is the link to the debate.
At 0:40, Mrs. Ria de Korte (NSC) starts with the opening mantra, a framing statement: "There has been a good debate about excess mortality. We also had a lot of discussion there about what exactly excess mortality is." Both statements are open to criticism because Karremans in particular managed to mix up just about all terms that are excess mortality-related when he started to explain what excess mortality actually was at the end of the debate, after more than an hour of 'good discussion about excess mortality'. Enough about that, I've already covered that once.
In the end, De Korte struggles through the motion, not entirely without a fight. Halfway through she seems to have lost the thread for a moment, but she recovers admirably. Whether she is nervous or no longer understands what she is actually reading while reading, I can't really judge. It does not give the impression of being above matter, shall we say.
Motion 1 requests that RIVM be asked to pay attention to the fact that the expected mortality, calculated on the basis of the recent excess mortality years, is not a good guideline for a baseline that should indicate the norm mortality.
Well, this is exactly what I argued in two articles, after which Herman Steigstra in turn contributed a statistical contribution. The comparison with target weight and increase in the average BMI still speaks volumes, I think. For all three articles, see https://virusvaria.nl/tag/normsterfte
That could still be a coincidence. After all, it is a completely logical thought, anyone with any mind can think of that. But Thiadens (PVV) had also cited a virusvaria article in the first debate, by Hans Verwaart. He did so again in his motion.
Motion 2 calls for attention to the substantial (not to say dramatic) excess mortality among women between the ages of 40 and 50, which Hans Verwaart substantiates in two articles.
In the "closer look" article, he shows the results of the application of the CBS baselines. These differ quite a bit in the various CBS forecasts – problematic in itself, of course, and a signal that short-term factors are being taken into account, as he also points out.
Karremans drives the cart through the poo
Motion 1
Karremans first corrects De Korte with a severe reprimand. He says that the NSC motion "asks me commission to RIVM" and that is of course a pothole in the road for Karremans. He therefore speaks to Ria in detail, correcting.
He says he knows NSC as a party that values the independence of certain institutions "I also include the RIVM in that" – but for a moment? – "So a commission I'm certainly not going to give it."
Well done Vin, put her in her place. His mother will be proud of him. Let them feel who is boss here!
In the end, he strokes his heart, but Ria has to bend his knees for that: he wants to "I will talk to the RIVM, but I am certainly not going to give an assignment, only under that condition." Ria humbly agrees.
Only: the whole word 'assignment' does not appear in the motion! See the literal text on the right.
25 295 Infectious disease control
No. 2222
MOTION BY MEMBER DE KORTE
Proposed March 27, 2025
The Chamber,
after hearing the deliberations,
noting that RIVM calculates excess mortality by comparing the number of deaths with the expected number of deaths in the same period and that the number of expected deaths is based, among other things, on an average of the number of deaths in previous years;
Whereas that if previous years with excess mortality are taken as a reference for the following years, any persistent excess mortality will no longer be recognised;
Whereas that the recognition of excess mortality is of great importance for many policy areas;
calls on the government to ask RIVM to reflect on its calculation model for excess mortality in which previous years are included in excess mortality and to ask RIVM to explain how excess mortality can remain visible in a possible other calculation model if there is excess mortality in previous years, and to inform the House of the results of this consultation before 1 September 2025,
and proceeds to the order of the day.
The Short
Karremans seems to be pre-sorting, a maneuver to avoid having to ask the difficult question about the calculation model. We'll see how he handles this. He is going to talk, that is what he has made of the motion. A formal cup of coffee about small talk is then sufficient. Actually, noting an appointment in the mutual agendas is sufficient, in case there is ever a WOO request.
"I had set the condition that I would talk. I did that and nothing came out of it.“
of
“We started talking and it turned out that there was no reason to change the calculation model, also because of the discontinuity."
Or he himself is sent packing:
"The CBS model already appears to be different from the RIVM model. That has already been optimized."
Ready.
Motion 2
In this motion, Folkert Thiadens asks whether it is possible to investigate the exceptional excess mortality among women. Karremans can be brief about that. A moment of fame: at 14:20, the State Secretary mentions 'virusvaria.nl'. Immediately followed by another characteristic 'word salad' that no one argues against. What is it with those people. He also says:
"It seems that the author has developed his own model, as Mr. Thiadens already indicated: a non-scientific model."
Thiadens did not indicate that at all, but he does not interrupt (maybe that is not allowed?). I would have liked to hear what is non-scientific about it. It is even transparent and substantiated, come to think of that these days. Moreover, if Karremans had taken the trouble to read Hans' second article, he would have seen, as Thiadens does explicitly indicate, that even with the 'CBS calculation model', that excess mortality remains intact. Unfortunately, Thiadens does not use the word 'CBS calculation model' but says something about extrapolations and then you see it fly past Karremans.
What would be non-scientific about it is not even considered. Governments and institutions do not have to do that, it only has to be done in countries where administrators are aware of democratic norms and values.
Accountability is not necessary. Just as Lareb does not have to explain what is 'incorrect' about the content of conversations.
Or no, it is not even incorrect in terms of content: 'the way in which'*, that is incorrect!
And if it is not, then it can always just become 'the tone' that does not please.
Actually, just: "Don't feel like it."
What is unscientific...
* Prof. Dr. Agnes Kant actually writes 'the way with which'
In short, that motion is advised against on improper grounds. Let those women die. As long as the RIVM or CBS does not sound the alarm, we just pretend that our nose bleeds, that is the message.
How poorly informed those politicians are. And uninterested. We are really talking about tens of thousands of Dutch people who died in excess mortality.
And the FVD is letting it go completely. Very disappointing.
Do I need to mention Tielen, who thought he had to speak a few times? Well, of which noted.
Link to the debate: https://debatdirect.tweedekamer.nl/2025-03-27/zorg-en-gezondheid/plenaire-zaal/tweeminutendebat-oversterfte-cd-20-2-19-00/video
The turnout was zero, in short " they don't give a fuck ".
Including FvD.
And then they (the politicians, party doesn't matter) look sheepish when it turns out that trust in politics has fallen even further below zero degrees Kelvin. It turns out that if you really can't do anything at all, you don't give a shit about any morality, like to see yourself in the absolute center, you can talk incredibly lame and love the lie, you can always go into politics.
Unfortunately, this also applies to these 2 members of the House of Representatives of NSC and PVV. What an unprofessional presentation. Let them learn from Wilders how to put something like that on the agenda!
But well, Wilders is too busy keeping Faber on track......
But Hans and virus varia have been mentioned and that is really good news! Tielen and Karremans can no longer deny that they have never been able to learn this information. Even worse (better), it is now very clearly stated that only politically approved scientists do science. Spread the word with image and sound ðŸ‘
If only it was clearly said with conviction and emotional NLP images. Both subjects deserve that 100%!
But:
Both 2nd chamber members were just stupidly frolicking. Unfortunately, I can't make anything better out of it.
Nothing to your detriment Anton (I would be proud if you could get the syrupy House of Representatives moving with your questions and you succeeded), but the most interesting thing in this debate is what has not been said. The fact that FvD was not present also speaks volumes.
5 years ago, every very elderly or seriously ill patient who had to exchange the earthly for the heavenly was deeply regretted in politics, media, science (as if no people were dying before 2020).
Now dying has become a statistical model that you don't have to understand anything about as long as RIVM and CBS proclaim that nothing is wrong.
To put it even shorter: What science says has become how the political wind blows. Nothing more, nothing less.
Michael Crichton once wrote an interesting essay about this: why politicized science is dangerous. To be found here:
https://mennodeboer.com/2021/06/14/michael-crichton-why-politicized-science-is-dangerous/
State of Fear is an essential book.
I am absolutely not a scientist myself, but I still wonder what is so complicated about the concept of "excess mortality", and why it has to be explained with hands and teeth!
Significantly more people die than the average of previous years, period! (yes certainly: years before corona ...... to be honest!)
Well, that is a misunderstanding of the nuance of knowledge.
Of course, the definition is crucial, because otherwise you could interpret all kinds of coincidental circumstances as a problem.
You have to remember that in a "normal" flu year, mortality also hops up and down. And those are effects that you want to filter out.
So, sorry, it is indeed necessary to properly define what excess mortality is and when it is a problem.
It is true that a graph from HansV shows very clearly that there is a mega problem.
http://disq.us/p/32gopzm
And then a sharp definition hardly seems necessary, because you see the mortality over 10 years. But even then: you have to be sure that not due to a special circumstance many more women aged 40 – 50 have suddenly come to live in NL in 2022.......
And that is exactly the point. You can tell everyone anything.
The word "average" you use, that's right. Based on averages, there is a huge excess mortality.
But taking the average of an aging population is the least good statistical method you can use, as a basis for the standard mortality.
Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. The trick is to formulate as few disadvantages as possible in a statistical calculation (model).
Despite all the nuances, you can statistically prove that there is currently no extreme 'excess mortality'. CBS and RIVM do this very competently. But it has little to do with finding out the truth.
If you look at subgroups, the picture will change.
In my opinion (and Maurice, Herman, Anton) you cannot truthfully prove that there is no excess mortality on average.
The problem is that the so-called scientists take all kinds of twists and turns in order not to undermine the regular narrative about policy.
And even more worrisome is that scientists who dare to undermine that narrative with data and arguments are being cancelled by their profession. That is why the critical "scientists" also keep their mouths shut to be able to continue to pay their mortgage. Actually, it's a kind of terror....
But completely predictable if you've read T.S. Kuhn......
I also make a prediction in terms of mortality based on trend analyses.
And the mortality of the total population is fairly similar to the current mortality.
The fact that there are shifts, and the 65-80 group shows significant excess mortality, that is the real news.
But without batting an eyelid, you can simply claim that it can be statistically proven that the total mortality has not increased.
https://x.com/BonneKlok/status/1903073807700476233?t=c9TK2FwyK53Qq_tCrwdo-w&s=19
Your X message only seems to be going for the last few weeks. Herman found that there was always excess mortality after a round of vaccinations (also Sept./Oct. 2024).
I'm curious where and to what extent your numbers + analysis differ from Herman's......
I just quickly reread that article. That was with the numerical knowledge of 2022. We are now 2 years later, the excess mortality continues to slowly decrease for the time being (although the past flu is blowing up dust again). It is very well possible that we will go back to the normal level as we envision.
How does that work in your baseline, Bonne? Then we should be there by now, I think? Maybe you want to try your hand at it again?
Is that offer still valid? I read that article by Herman about norm mortality, in which my name was also mentioned. And I would like to respond to that with an article.
Sorry for the late response Bonne! Of course that offer is there, always welcome!
For the time being, I just think it's less important to argue with each other myself. Unfortunately, we are still at the stage where we have to prove that there is actually a problem with how excess mortality is currently interpreted.
But: showing more alternative options, of course I can't be against that. Perhaps you can explain why a different approach can be better than working with mortality probabilities by age, in the period of, say, 2010-2019. (For example, I see the merging of cohorts as an unnecessary impoverishment of information.) If you see it differently: explain it well.
I do have some 'special' insights. I will write something out.
Of course, it's about the baseline. Bonne's comes (of course) from trend analyses, but with a somewhat different twist, which needs to be explained. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it is much closer to today's figures. Although that doesn't really mean anything either... Explanation of Bonne state here (if you have something more current, let me know, Bonne)
I hear the name T.S. Kuhn far too little. He describes exactly how it works.
The entire conceptual science model (at least everything related to virology/epidemiology and prevention) needs to be overhauled, including all the bells and whistles, mantras, dignitaries, fan clubs, government lobby, advertising magazines, government subsidies, high priests, etc. Such a bubble cannot be burst easily, but disruption will have to set in somewhere.
This man is definitely worth listening to. It's about the T cells and how Covid and vaccine may deactivate them and thus damage your immune system.
And this man has made a Vaccine to activate T cells, so that could be a solution for every virus?
https://rumble.com/v6r8gwm-dr.-patrick-soon-shiong-youre-being-lied-to-about-cancer-how-its-caused-and.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp