The state interest prevents the view of total collapse

We zouden het gek vinden als een oplichter, vanwege de privacy van zijn slachtoffers, een deel van zijn boekhouding niet wil overhandigen, maar er wel over opschept binnen zijn netwerk. Of zegt: ik wil het wel overhandigen maar je kunt er toch niks mee. Of er inderdaad zo'n rommeltje van heeft gemaakt dat er inderdaad weinig uit te halen valt. Het vervuilen, onbereikbaar of zoek maken van bewijsmateriaal, dat mag toch niet?

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 ook al aan bod, hier een korte recap.) Covid-19 is bij het CBS als primaire doodsoorzaak gecodeerd aan de hand van de doodsoorzaakformulieren. Het coronavlaggetje gaat omhoog als Covid-19 ook maar ergens in de causale keten wordt genoemd, of wanneer er alleen sprake was van een positieve PCR-test, waarvan we weten dat die niet aangeeft of iemand ook ziek is van corona. Kortom: zodra 'Covid-19' ook maar ergens voorkomt op het formulier (in elk geval op "Deel 1"), is de overledene voor het CBS een coronadode.

Zo is er met griep nooit omgegaan: als griep een complicerende factor was bij COPD-, kanker-, diabetes-patiënten etc, dan werd griep niet als doodsoorzaak aangemerkt. En bedenk dat héél veel mensen Covid hadden - dus ook mensen die aan iets anders overleden.

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 onverklaardesterfte.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

I understand that official: if anything hasn't been postponed, it's the vaccinations, so how could they have anything to do with it!

Die data moeten te zijner tijd misschien strafrechtelijk worden gevorderd. Het effect van zo'n vordering valt te betwijfelen. Er is al eerder informatie gerechtelijk gevorderd op straffe van een dagelijkse dwangsom maar die betaalt het ministerie dan gewoon. Probleem opgelost.

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?

"Er gaat toch niet iemand moedwillig informatie zitten bewerken...? En zeker niet als daarmee de Tweede Kamer moet worden geïnformeerd."

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

Zijn alle vaccins slecht? Dat hoeft helemaal niet. Een rode draad onder vaccincritici is het verhaal van de "bad batches". Vaccins worden in grote batches geproduceerd, denk maar aan enorme vaten, die elk een eigen batchnummer hebben. Het streefvolume van elke batch is 309.000 "vials" (flesjes) van 6 injecties per vial, er zijn ook batches van ca. 500.000 vials.

Een aantal batches (in het Engels "lots" genoemd) is in de meldingsdatabases oververtegenwoordigd, wat duidt op grote kwaliteitsverschillen. Nadere analyses wijzen wel uit dat er batches zijn die 4x zoveel sterftemeldingen hebben veroorzaakt als batches van vergelijkbare grootte. Een Deense studie constateert dat de helft van de bijwerkingen is te herleiden tot 4% van de batches. Het zou dus de moeite zijn om eens te kijken of ook in Nederland zo'n verband is te ontdekken. Het kan immers ook zijn dat sommige batches bij voornamelijk jongeren terecht zijn gekomen en andere bij voornamelijk kwetsbaren, wat weer kan samenhangen met de periode van vaccineren. Zo kan de ene batch veel slechter lijken dan de andere terwijl het te herleiden is naar de doelgroep. Maar zonder batchnummers kan dat niet.

Het bestaan van 'bad batches' is zeker niet denkbeeldig. In gelekte EMA-documenten wordt gesproken over onzuiver mRNA, beschadigd mRNA, te weinig of teveel mRNA. RNA-instabiliteit is überhaupt een van de grootste hindernissen voor onderzoekers die op nucleïnezuur gebaseerde vaccins ontwikkelen. Specifieke regelgevingsrichtsnoeren voor op mRNA gebaseerde vaccins moeten nog worden ontwikkeld, valt te lezen in een artikel 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;

Conclusions

• 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.

Now what?

De overheid heeft zich in de hoek geverfd. Gegevens die de vaccins kunnen vrijpleiten van elke verdenking worden niet geopenbaard. Ook niet als daaruit zou blijken dat het enkele productiefouten, bewaarfouten of distributiefouten zijn geweest van een van origine wel degelijk bruikbaar injectiemiddel. Het zou nog als escape kunnen dienen voor eerdere missers, zoals de toelating op basis van zorgvuldig geproduceerde, bewaarde en getransporteerde samples - al zou je zeggen dat ook de productieketen aan de hoogste kwaliteitseisen zou moeten voldoen. Maar zelfs die escape wordt niet aangegrepen.

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.