We would find it crazy if a scammer, because of the privacy of his victims, does not want to hand over part of his accounting, but brags about it within his network. Or says: I want to hand it over but you can't do anything with it. Whether it has indeed made such a mess that there is indeed little to get out of it. Polluting, unattainable or searching evidence, that's not allowed, is it?
And how does that translate into data fraud: what if you build databases and would later want to introduce them as evidence - or the other party asks for it - but the databases do not appear to have been properly merged or essential information is not included. Basic material is not handed over, not even to check whether it is really the case that the data has become defective or could even give a very wrong impression.
The dates of death, together with the vaccination statuses, are the key to exonerating accusations that the vaccinations are partly responsible for the unexplained excess mortality. But the cause of death dates are unusable, and the vaccination dates aren't actually necessary, at least according to whoever is supposed to release them.
CBS causes of death data: careless
(This came elsewhere Also covered, here's a short recap.) Covid-19 has been coded as the primary cause of death at CBS on the basis of the cause of death forms. The corona flag goes up if the infection was only a complicating factor or an additional factor, for example in case of general weakening or old age, or if there was only a positive PCR test, which we know does not indicate whether someone is also sick with corona. In short: as soon as 'Covid-19' appears anywhere on the form, the deceased is a corona death for CBS.
This is how flu was never dealt with: if flu was a complicating factor in COPD, cancer, diabetes patients, etc., then flu was not considered the cause of death.
The WHO gives as an example of an exception: a motorcycle accident in someone who had recently tested positive. With any other natural cause of death, such a person is registered as a corona death.
As also explained on onverklaardeoversterfte.nl As a result, the registrations are a distorted representation of the actual causes of death. A lot of academic energy is put into sifting through this data. But if the data itself does not accurately reflect what people have died from, this makes an analysis of the influence of, for example, delayed care virtually impossible. Any mortality study is in doubt at the time these data are used. If these non-specific microdata add anything, they won't provide definitive answers. The with/due to corona demand will remain.
You then only have the date of death and the vaccination dates to work with.
RIVM-Vaccination data: first see then believe
Eline van den Broek is the first researcher who dared to ask for vaccination data. She told Marianne Zwagerman that she had to justify to the official on duty what exactly certain vaccination variables were needed for in her scientific research into delayed care as a factor in excess mortality.
I understand that official: if anything hasn't been postponed, it's the vaccinations, so how could they have anything to do with it!
Those dates may have to be criminally claimed in due course. The effect of such a claim is doubtful. Information has already been legally requested under penalty of a daily penalty payment, but the ministry simply pays it. Problem solved.
In the meantime, what happens to those vaccination dates? With a small intervention in a database, a lot can be plausibilized. In a sinister conspiracy scenario, you can imagine that with a fairly simple script in a database, the vaccination statuses of vaccinated deceased people have been swapped with those of living unvaccinated people of the same age group, until the ratio is somewhat more favorable for the survival rate of vaccinated people. No one ever finds out. There is no auditing. The data is anonymized so cannot be verified on an individual level. If something is requested per individual, family members will also catch bone. (My wife wanted to see the medical records after her mother's death. That didn't work out: privacy, medical secrecy. In principle, doctors do not dare to have their work assessed. Later, a judge didn't think it was necessary either.)
So who can ever validate that data? Who is watching, who is ensuring that this data remains honest? Is every edit logged? Is the court on top of it, or a sharp accountant?
"Surely no one is going to deliberately edit information...? And certainly not if it has to inform the House of Representatives."
Above: Page 45 Cochrane excess mortality report as sent to MPs.
Below: Pg. 45 Cochrane excess mortality reporting (dd 14-4), Download version 22-4-2023 ZonMW
Who has been editing here and most importantly: why? Why should there be no scientific doubt about data quality? Or was it added later and if so, have the MPs been informed about those concerns regarding data quality?
We already know the answer. Unwelcome information is taboo. External critical parties are taboo. And yet there is plenty of reason to zoom in on the vaccines, if only because of the varying quality of production batches.
The fate of the bad batches
Several studies show that the quality of the injection fluid was very variable, something that should be impossible with medicines. Current quality control does not collect data on any of the distributed vials (Vaccine, 2021). The medical industry, which relies on the highest standards, clearly does not have the quality control of this end product in order. Knowing this, there is no regulator that puts the brakes on a new product that imposes unusual requirements for vaccines on, for example, temperature control. After all, those regulators are government institutions and the governments pushed the vaccinations, so they had to go through. Accidents are muttered away under the motto of vaccination readiness. See Lareb's repeated reluctant addition to the list of side effects, if red flags had been waved long and wide.
Not every vaccine is a poison syringe
Are all vaccines bad? You don't have to. A common thread among vaccine critics is the story of the "bad batches." Vaccines are produced in large batches, just think of huge barrels, each of which has its own batch number. The target volume of each batch is 309,000 vials of 6 injections per vial, there are also batches of approx. 500,000 vials.
A number of batches (called "lots") are overrepresented in the notification databases, indicating large differences in quality. Further analyses do show that there are batches that have caused 4 times as many mortality reports as batches of similar size. A Danish study finds that half of the side effects can be traced to 4% of batches. It would therefore be worthwhile to see if such a connection can also be discovered in the Netherlands. After all, it is also possible that some batches have ended up with mainly young people and others with mainly vulnerable people, which in turn may be related to the period of vaccination. For example, one batch can seem much worse than the other while it can be traced back to the target group. But you can't do that without batch numbers.
The existence of 'bad batches' is certainly not imaginary. Leaked EMA documents talk about impure mRNA, damaged mRNA, too little or too much mRNA. RNA instability is one of the biggest hurdles for researchers developing nucleic acid-based vaccines. Specific regulatory guidance for mRNA-based vaccines has yet to be developed, according to an article in the BMJ. There is therefore a lack of official quality requirements for mRNA vaccines: they simply do not yet exist. So there is no standard for how much they can differ from each other. Despite this, governments have enforced distribution with amounts reminiscent of bribery and conditions that opened the door to irresponsible production and distribution methods with inadequate output control.
Reason enough to take a closer look at the batch numbers in relation to the individual mortality rates. Oddly enough, those were not public, which led to a WOO request. The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport replied that this information is not available, while they have done so in other countries.
Previous WOB documents also state in black and white how rivm and Lareb have arranged for personal data and side effects to be linked to batch numbers of vaccines. See the report on this on the Substack van Cees van den Bos, which summarizes what rivm and Lareb mutually agreed on and what played a role in this. Highlights:
- On the basis of Article 6b of the Public Health Act, RIVM is obliged to administer vaccinations in an orderly manner;
- RIVM has outsourced the registration of side effects including batch numbers to Lareb;
- Side effects are recorded, provided with batch number;
- The administration may not have been correct, especially in the beginning;
- When the side effects and vaccination data linked to batch number are not available, the Public Health Act has been violated;
- When the side effects and vaccination data linked to batch number are available, the Public Government Act has been violated.
Perhaps state interest trumps the law, according to the incumbent ministers.
The government has painted itself into the corner. Data that could exonerate the vaccines from any suspicion is not revealed. Not even if it would turn out that it was some production errors, storage errors or distribution errors of an originally usable injection agent. It could still serve as an escape for previous mistakes, such as the admission based on carefully produced, stored and transported samples – although you would say that the production chain should also meet the highest quality requirements. But even that escape is not seized.
However, if the data showed that these vaccines should never have been authorised, there would be systemic errors. At the highest level, error after error is stacked and the question is why. In that case, the government has failed to protect citizens and to monitor public health. Is that an institutional issue? Can it be traced back to certain officials? Incompetence or corruption? Is the state interest at stake?
If some banks already too big to fail and must be saved, after which those responsible can simply continue on their way, then the state is certain too big to fail. But we should not know that, in the interest of the state. That also works just like with banks: if they are in danger, no one should know either, otherwise their fate is sealed.
And they have a point, see the Thorbeckelezing by Omtzigt. The structure of the state is indeed in danger because it is no longer viable. The trias politica has become an elite bastard. The question is not whether this system will collapse, but when. We are looking at the agony of the highest power systems. The collateral damage is unprecedented.
This is what a total collapse looks like.