In the meantime, I have listed some highlights from the report. See
Takeaways from the Meester/Jacobs study on excess mortality and vaccinations
After a loud drum roll, including from Jan Bonte, it's finally there. I've just read the first 100 pages of the report Final report of the research into a possible relationship between Covid-19 vaccinations and excess mortality in Nederland_2021 – 2023. Of course I can think something of it, but to start whining again, I would be doing the work of Meester/Jacobs a disservice. I'm way too glad it's there at all. A voluminous report that hopefully speaks the language of the group that has nothing to do with bloggers or social media.
What I see in the report so far: the approach has been thorough and ambitious, but it has failed due to substandard data and biased reports based on rickety science. In any case, this has now been convincingly demonstrated. So it wasn't up to us 'attic room scientists' that there wasn't a decent soup to brew and that we had to keep guessing and speculating. We still have to do that, and I do not expect this report to change that. After all, the necessary data is stored in a very thick safe with those who were too laconic with it at the time.
What is once again confirmed is that science must be transparent for the benefit of independent analysis. The argument of Kuipers in the House at the time, when he refused to release data: "It would be of no use to you anyway, that data" remains scandalous, of course.
The machinations of the government and its institutions (which have served as camouflage tents for policy mistakes) have made scientific evaluations impossible. We have all known for a long time that it was not science. And that there is almost certainly a lot going on with the relationship between vaccination and excess mortality is clear from this report.
It is a 168-page report that describes in detail the intentions and obstacles in conducting this research. It sometimes reads like a statistics syllabus, but that might be good for those who (should) take it in. The first part relies heavily on the work of Herman Steigstra cs. Anyone who has followed virus varia and/or Herman on LinkedIn appears to have been well informed, at least if we are to believe the report. It also draws on our data, Herman's graphs and I believe also on virus miscellaneous insights (although understandably only scientific publications are mentioned).
I think the most important conclusion (up to page 100 that is) is that the definitions in all reports are careless (vaccinated/not, Covid/not, etc.) and the data incomplete and sometimes even inconsistent, and that absurd results are presented in official reports without batting an eyelid. We knew that – but now maybe people are listening. After all, it is now a voluminous report of about € 240 per page, written by two respected and unsuspecting academics. At least, as long as they are not sued by the RIVM for libel or something. Nothing surprises me anymore.
All shots across the bow. I think we'll come back to it. You can download the report here:
And to speak with Woutertje Pieterse on behalf of the authorities:
Cheating is a virtue
And brings much amusement to mankind
I thought it was inappropriate that not all authors were mentioned on the front page of the report. Inappropriate, vain, I don't know the right word, but to think that because only the names of Jacobs and Meester are on the front page, that the report would therefore be read more, that seems to me, to use a statistical term, very unlikely. I think it would have been read more if authors hadn't published all those chapters at once, but over time.
I actually found the chapter about the vaccinations with missing dates (HS 6 if I'm correct) quite shocking (there is something wrong with that data, somewhere it is not right..)
I thought Chapter 2 was excellent. Of course I've read it here before. Point of criticism: why always say 'death to corona' when, if you want to use 'corona' at all, the term would be much better 'death with corona'. In addition to a positive corona test, these people who died also had a lot of other underlying diseases that could kill them.
We remain critical...
Very good. I don't know how much Jona Walk and Jan Bonte literally wrote/contributed. The research project was set up by Meesters/Jacobs and I don't know what the conventions are like with assistants/advisors/co-authors. I don't think anyone takes this very seriously.
Of course they are also indebted to me (they also mention me in a footnote, together with Herman) but I didn't write a single letter of them – while you had already read a lot of Chapter 2 here, you say yourself. (And I recognize some things in other chapters as well.)
I am pleased with the confirmation from an academic side, happy that there is a voluminous report by two respected academics. In terms of content, I have already seen some small things that I would have done differently ('with/by' indeed) but that doesn't matter. The more people who dare to stick their necks out, the better. This is only possible if they themselves are 100% behind their contribution and everyone has their own spearheads, style and convictions.
About the way the piece was marketed: I can't help it, you're talking to the wrong person 🙂
By the way, three years ago I personally put Ronald Meester on the excess mortality track with my first graphs over a cup of coffee, someone had arranged that. Since then, we have been in (in)regular contact. At the time, Herman was still busy with variants and immunity and I had no contact at all with Jan Bonte nor with the circle around maurice.nl. That's where Jillis Kriek introduced me, who moderates maurice.nl and has written good pieces himself, also on this site. Just some background. Maybe I'll take it away again, it's just distracting.
Dear Anton, leave it alone. A fairy tale comes to mind: Tom Thumb and the Giant. And also the story of David versus Goliath. Together we are Tom Thumb and David, one more than the other and unfortunately one less noticed than the other but all very important AND indispensable for me and the future of my family!
And yes I know, not too much credit 😉 ... Will remain critical and especially scientific, but my (our?) patience is being tested. Am I going to lose 🤷 another family member this fall...
Insightful Anton. Thanks.
I myself have been a sponsor of this research. I am extremely disappointed. I had hoped for a thorough, independent and neutral investigation. This study is written so defensively that I could hardly read it myself and therefore cannot forward it to anyone.
Unfortunately, I now experience that the frustrations of certain enormous egos such as Jan Bonte, Theunissen and Steigstra determine the tone in this report.
Good lesson for me: alternative studies by scientists are also NOT reliable at all!
I am sorry about that, the gentlemen have put a lot of time into it, I know.
I don't understand what you mean by "defensive"? Reticent? Cautious?
The frustrations of the egos seem to me to be more of a topic for the drinks table. My frustrations are mainly in not following basic scientific rules and in the role of the media. I don't see that reflected in their publication.
Incidentally, we are independent researchers with output of scientific quality, although we also do other things.
But thanks for your comment anyway. If I speak to Ronald Meester again, I will let him know.
I get Kitty. I have objected to this "meta study" from the beginning. By definition, this is praise or criticism of previous research. And because we already knew that that research was rubbish, it is therefore a lot of criticism, rightly so. But that's defensive. And it does not lead to substantially new insights.
It would be much more useful to have a study based on suitable data that conclusively establishes the actual relationships. Then you don't have to criticize previous research. Then you only show how the facts lead to certain conclusions. It should have been.
So I am still waiting for the first reliable "all cause mortality" study of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, in which the correct definitions have been used and in which the healthy vaccine mechanism has been corrected. And the latter also makes it difficult. But the correct definition (you have been vaccinated from the moment of the jab) is very easy to correct if you have the data. At the moment, the waiting period of 3 or 4 weeks is still used, which means that the largest mortality shifts to unvaccinated people, because a relatively large number of vaccinated people die within 2 weeks after the vaccination.
That's the only thing that really makes sense. And which is likely to revolutionize.
Some interesting and (in my opinion) also relevant scientific studies on the relationship between vaccination and (excess) mortality have been done by Christof Kuhbandner (University of Regensburg) and Matthias Reitzner (University of Osnabrück).
I did not find these references in the study of Meester and Jacobs. Therefore, here's a short introduction.
Kuhbandner and Reitzner work with their own excess mortality calculations, using a state-of-art, actuarial (life tables) based methodology. They are therefore much more advanced than RIVM and CBS.
In their studies (e.g. in a study in the journal Curieus) they show that there is a significant positive correlation between vaccination coverage and excess mortality in Germany, the country of the RKI traffic jams. Their most recent study (February 2024) is particularly interesting.
See:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378124684_Differential_Increases_in_Excess_Mortality_in_the_German_Federal_States_During_the_COVID-19_Pandemic
In it, they show that from spring 2020 to spring 2023, there is not only a positive correlation over time, but also a positive correlation in the space between vaccination and mortality: German states with high vaccination coverage also tend to have high excess mortality. In other words, there is a 'double' positive correlation in Germany.
This is particularly impressive because an earlier (published) study had found a negative correlation between vaccination coverage and the extent of excess mortality in federal states. Kuhbandner and Reizner show in the reference that this negative correlation disappears after a careful data analysis and that a positive correlation remains.
A similar picture can also be observed with the number of stillbirths in Germany: that number also correlates positively in space and time with the level of vaccination coverage.
Because the development of excess mortality in the Netherlands from the end of 2020 to 2023 seems to be more or less linked to that in Germany, you could perhaps indirectly, e.g. via federal states, link the results for Germany to excess mortality in the Netherlands.
I have followed Kuhbandner's pieces and I think Ronald Meester did too. Their publication is, of course, about the Netherlands. I haven't checked all the references. Is Denis Rancourt, for example, listed? I'm running out of time, sorry. And actually you should ask the authors, I didn't write a letter on this, they did draw on my work and (especially) Herman's for some chapters.
I suggested Rancourt's most recent study (data from something like 115 countries) to Marc Jacobs via Linkedin, but it actually came too late. I understand that the authors are expressing themselves cautiously. That is the only way to have a substantive debate. Maybe it will be something with Fleur Agema at VWS.
I've already seen some shocking reactions on Linkedin that don't really point to a debate.
Had also contributed to the crowdfunding himself.
I'm glad it's not just a matter of waiting. This emphasizes the need for that data. This will have to continue to be done in all kinds of ways, including by scientists.
Of course, that's also true. That is also part of growing habitat for the blow that is probably still to come.........
I've read everything now. H.4 and H8 are disappointing to me. But H. 5 .. 7 are quite revealing. Based on CBS detailed figures, it appears that increased mortality occurs in that cohort after vaccination of an age cohort. Herman Steigstra had already pointed this out before, but on the basis of global and more dubious data. Now this is the table. And that has major consequences! Anne Laning tries to debunk that, but without success. I fear (...) that this will remain the case. Unfortunately, the HVE does not allow you to determine the VE and mortality after vaccination; But it now seems certain that there is mortality. And the fact that the VE figures have always been heavily exaggerated by RIVM/CBS has now also been proven hard. However, what it is cannot be properly determined by the HVE on the basis of the figures and bias.
That is my conclusion. So: should be prosecuted.
"A "vaccine" against lung cancer... "mRNA vaccine"... Just read in a news item posted in the comments on Maurice's site. In my eyes, they are word games that are inculcated. Ronald Meester and the others also use words such as vaccinations, probably not to get too much opposition, so that the report still has a chance of success to get through to authoritative for further research 🤞It is now waiting for the diminutives, we already have a shot, in lung cancer the infusion will be and for years the pill, drink, etc. I wish people diagnosed with lung cancer this hopeful therapy because once upon a time it was intended that the mrna technique (in my own words) would bring a cure for cancer.
This was not the research we need.
Nevertheless, all criticism of all the studies and data from the official bodies is completely justified.
But in my opinion, that doesn't help you that much.
We want the right conclusions to be drawn based on the facts (the difference between the all-cause mortality of vaccinated and unvaccinated people; biases eliminated).
Instead of showing that the current conclusions drawn are based on bad data and fallacies. And that's what Masters' research actually does. Excellent. But it doesn't help us any further.
Perhaps the only positive thing is that this research will create a habitat in which it is possible that completely different conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the facts without them being immediately torched. Let's hope so.....
I think they would have thought that with the right methodological approach they could uncover more. Stubborn, but a nice confirmation that people like Herman Steigstra and Hans Verwaart have squeezed everything out of the available figures.
Chapter 6 does provide new information, at least definitive confirmation of suspicions we already had.
Mwah, they also indicate that hard evidence is still lacking......
After reading it, I am a lot more positive. See cmt. elsewhere on this page.
However, there is a very important conclusion to be drawn, namely that vaccine effectiveness and vaccine safety cannot be determined in a scientifically sound manner with the help of retrospective research.* The reasons are: polluted data, sloppy administration and healthy vaccinee effect (HVE).
HVE is a relatively large bias, especially in the older age groups. Correction for HVE is very difficult. The results of retrospective research should therefore always be interpreted with some caution.
This research clearly shows that the medical world and the government are not able to have their data collection in order. In other countries, this will not be much different.
These should be important arguments for the controlling authorities not to grant provisional approval to new vaccines in the future. First, Phase 3 must be completed with a positive result. Also, the provisional approval for these so-called covid vaccines should be withdrawn.
These conclusions can be reasonably substantiated on the basis of this research.
In fact, the entire admission system would have to be overhauled and regained its independence from government and industry.
*) Retrospective research is research that is done in practice during and after the roll-out of the vaccination campaign.
It's idd. Very difficult, but not impossible.
But you have to want it. And you have to be willing to make the data available. And that's both a "no" for the official bodies.
Steve Kirsch has compared different brands of vaccines. That's one way to correct for HVE. This leads to interesting conclusions. See his substack.
But in my opinion, the approval of vaccines should be based on randomized and placebo-controlled experimental trials.
https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282
Why is this not being written about?
Because it is not convenient for RIVM and VWS. But in the alternative media, this continues to be written about and counted on. Also with Antoon/ Virusvaria. That's a good thing.
Maar n.b: ook zij schrijven : “he next step concerns distinguishing between the various potential contributors to excess mortality, including COVID-19 infection, indirect effects of containment measures and COVID-19 vaccination programmes. Differentiating between the various causes is challenging.16 National mortality registries not only vary in quality and thoroughness but may also not accurately document the cause of death.1 19 ”
Terecht. Het is nog niet zo eenvoudig om de prik de schuld te geven van de oversterfte.
I'm a bit tired of the words 'maybe, probably' etc. In my area I have seen four men in their 50s die of heart attacks. Within a week after the first or second injection. One of cancer from which he had been cured. Now 7 women have problems with uterus. Cyscus and cancer. 30 to 50 years. All healthy to super healthy until the injections. Anecdotes. However, 1000 stories of mine is no longer anecdotes but is a trend and a given. What is Meester et al. afraid of to say 'it's those damn jabs'. To be arrested by the police? Is real these days. Afraid that a bigger smart guy will undermine the story?
It's the jabs.
Simple: because correlation is not causation. As a scientist, you (almost always) have to be careful with conclusions. Because of errors in data and bias in data. It's just very difficult, even if you have all the data, to correct for the healthy vaccine effect, for example. And that plays a pretty big role. In addition: postponement of care, long-term effects of Corona itself, other consequences of lockdown, etc. etc..
Maar het is ook waar dat het NIVEL onderzoek aan alle kanten rammelt. En dat Meester & Jacobs bloot gelegd hebben dat de basisgegevens rammelen.
But that doesn't mean you have demonstrated the "secret" we have been looking for for 3 years: namely that the mRNA vaccines are the main culprits of excess mortality.
Some people don't know anyone with needlestick damage, some are short of hands to count. I would like to see local data, by region or by batch number.
Broadcast of DNW seen with Ad Verbruggen, Ronald Meester and Bram Bakker. About this study.
Nice substantive conversation. Of course, it is unacceptable that after a round of vaccinations, people who have not been vaccinated suddenly die in larger numbers from all kinds of causes. That has now been explained. Not because the status 'vaccinated' was only granted a few weeks after the 2nd vaccination (as I first thought), but because of the fact that deceased people were no longer included in the vaccination register. This has been widely published, among others by Herman Steigstra on this site.
Another thing that struck me in the conversation was a discussion with Bram Bakker. He mentioned a link between the insurance database and vaccination status. Not so much about deaths, but about illness cases. Death is, of course, the most extreme side effect, but millions of cases of serious side effects have been reported worldwide. No one knows exactly how much. Logically, that should be a multiple of the number of deaths. Sounds like there might be enough info there to do something with.
I also found Bram Bakker remarkably mild about the institutions. Apparently, they are cooperating. But then you would expect whistleblowers there, wouldn't you?
Information about insured hospitalization dates is relatively easy to find via. https://www.opendisdata.nl/
Interestingly, for example, all kinds of thrombotic diseases did not increase in the corona year 2020, but increased by plus minus 20% in 2021 and 2022.
It is also interesting that in the incredibly busy and worry-ridden corona year 2020, FEWER people came to the hospital than in 2019
Another shocking finding (I think) is that almost 7 million Dutch people visit the hospital every year. That is something like 2 in 5: 2 out of 5 Dutch people are so ill that they visit the hospital at least once a year. General practitioner care, mental health care, nursing homes and rehabilitation are therefore not included.
2 out of 5: let it sink in...
In addition to the fact that many Dutch people are sick, I also see a huge revenue model and a kind of social provision where you can park a lot of people for work
I suspect that a number of Dutch people visit the ZKH many times in a year. And that results in 7 million visits. Of course, not 40% of the Dutch come to the ZKH every year (for themselves).